Defence against UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED

slick490

Hi,

We received a claim form from UK parking control limited union house for parking in a designated disabled persons parking place without displaying a badge 

it was in a retail park and unfortunately we did not appeal to the retail park before it got to this stage - the issue was the weather was horrific that day and the signs could not be seen clearly at all.

AOS has been done so I have until the 11th August to send the defence. 

I never appealed, I’m the keeper, and I didn’t identify the driver. Please can someone check it before I send?

---

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: [Insert Claim Number]
Between:
UK Parking Control Ltd (Claimant)
and
[Your Full Name] (Defendant)

---

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but denies any liability for the entirety of the claim.

2. The Defendant has never received a Letter Before Claim, contrary to the expectations set out in the Pre-Action Protocol. The first time the Defendant became aware of this matter escalating was upon receipt of the Claim Form.

3. The Particulars of Claim are sparse and fail to meet Civil Procedure Rule 16.4. They do not specify any clear contractual terms allegedly breached, nor do they identify the full details of the agreement or signage relied upon. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of the basis of claim, including signage, authority to operate on the land, and cause of action.

4. The Defendant has not been identified as the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is attempting to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) Schedule 4 to pursue the registered keeper. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to meet the strict requirements of POFA and is therefore unable to transfer liability to the keeper.

5. 5. The location is a retail park (XXXX), which is open to the general public. The Claimant must show that the signage at the site was sufficiently prominent and clearly communicated terms of parking, including any contractual obligation relating to designated disabled bays. The Defendant asserts that no such signage or markings were sufficiently visible, legible, or capable of forming a contract with a driver unfamiliar with the terms.

   In particular, the weather on the date in question was poor, with heavy rain and poor visibility. The floor markings were not visible from the driver's perspective when parking, and there was no clear signage indicating that the bay was designated for disabled use. The bay appeared indistinguishable from regular spaces at the time. It is denied that any contract could have been knowingly entered into in such conditions.

6. The Defendant notes that, even if the driver had parked in a bay designated for disabled users, no loss has been suffered by the Claimant. The site is a large retail location with no evidence that a disabled customer was denied access or that a genuine pre-estimate of loss was considered.

7. The Defendant further contends that any additional costs, fees or interest added to the original £100 charge are wholly disingenuous and attempt to circumvent the established principle set out in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which stated that the charge itself must already include all costs associated with enforcement. The arbitrary and invented ‘debt recovery’ and ‘legal’ fees are a clear abuse of process.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of:

   • The full terms and conditions relied upon.

   • That those terms were clearly visible and agreed by the driver at the time.

   • That the Claimant has authority from the landowner to enforce parking terms and to issue proceedings in their own name.

   • That they complied with the requirements of POFA 2012 in full, particularly Paragraphs 9, 13 and 14 of Schedule 4.

9. The Defendant reserves the right to further amend this defence upon disclosure of any additional particulars or evidence the Claimant may supply.

10. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any amount at all. The Defendant respectfully requests the court strike out or dismiss the claim.

---

Statement of Truth

I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Signed: [Type your full name]
Dated: [Insert today’s date]

---

Thank you everyone for your help yet again

Gr1pr

Definitely not,  seems old and out of date,  plus that statement of truth was retired several years ago 

Start over by using the template defence by coupon mad in announcements at the very top of the forum 

You mainly need a concise paragraph 3

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below,  plus the date that you completed the AOS stage online,  your claim history will have all the details 

Also post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

We presume that it's UKPC via DCB LEGAL   ?

slick490

Issue Date on Claim Form: 08/07/2025
AOS Submitted Online: 22/07/2025

Claimant: UK Parking Control Ltd
Solicitor: DCB Legal

I am the registered keeper. The alleged breach occurred on 02/01/2025.

3. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. The claim relates to an alleged parking event at Beckton Triangle Retail Park on 02/01/2025, where it is claimed that the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay without displaying a Blue Badge. The Defendant has not been identified as the driver and has not received any Letter Before Claim. The floor markings were not visible due to poor weather conditions on the day, and the Defendant denies that any clear contract was entered into. No appeal was submitted at the time.

Please find attached a redacted image of the Particulars of Claim below.

https://ibb.co/tTwdVgtj

Coupon-mad

Are you sure there was no LoC? Seems odd.

Add that there was no t&cs sign visible in that row of bays nearest the shops*, thus no contract was there to be seen or agreed.


*we've noticed before that UKPC and other PPCs at large retail parks often omit t&cs signs in disabled and parent/child bays. Almost like it's deliberate to fail to alert the more vulnerable shoppers...