Need Advice – Fighting UKCPM PCN at Rathbone Market (110 Barking Road)

Wizwacks

Hi all,
I’ve just received a County Court Claim Form from UKCPM, issued via the County Court Business Centre, after months of letters from BW Legal. I’ve now acknowledged the claim on MCOL and want to fight this properly — but would really appreciate some outside perspective.

Background:

• Alleged incident took place at Rathbone Market, 110 Barking Road, London E16.

• I was the driver.

• UKCPM claim I breached their terms by parking without a valid permit.

However, the signage situation is unclear and misleading:

• The UKCPM sign is small, easy to miss, and mounted on one pole near the area.

• A separate nearby pole has a Newham Council “AS2 permit holders only” sign, which looks more official and prominent.

• The layout gives the impression that this is council-managed parking, not private land under UKCPM’s control.

I’ve taken clear photos showing the two signs and how easily a driver could be confused. Even on Google Street View, the setup is hard to interpret.

My Situation:

• Claim issued: 17 July 2025

• Total claimed: £267 (including fees)

• Acknowledged on MCOL – I have until 15 August 2025 to file my defence.

Full disclosure:

I ignored all previous letters — my mistake.
In the past, similar claims from private parking companies fizzled out, so I assumed the same would happen here. Clearly not.

Looking for help on:

• How strong are the arguments around unclear signage and confusion between council vs private land?

• Has anyone dealt with this specific location (Rathbone Market)?

• Should I raise lack of landowner authority in the defence or save it for the witness stage?

• Any other tips before I draft and submit my defence?

Happy to upload the photos and documents if needed.
Thanks in advance to anyone who can share insight!

DE_612183

DCB Legal are likely to discontinue anyway...

Wizwacks

Thank. 
I double checked and my mistake. Its
BW Legal

Gr1pr

Wizwacks said:

Thank. 
I double checked and my mistake. Its
BW Legal

Then it may well end up in a court hearing 

Follow the advice in the second post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements plus the advice and template info in the defence template thread in announcements too 

Post your proposed ending for paragraph 2 and your bespoke paragraph 3 below for critique 

Castle

Please post up a copy of the claim, (redacted as necessary).

(Your filing deadline date is normally 33 days after the issue date-therefore, 19th August).

Wizwacks

Here is a letter from BW Legal

Gr1pr

The LoC is irrelevant if you have a live court claim , so an NISDT claim  !

Wizwacks

Here is the letter from the County Court Business Centre,


 

Castle

You have left the password showing.

Wizwacks

Castle said:

You have left the password showing.

Thanks. Amended. 

Wizwacks

Gr1pr said:

Wizwacks said:

Thank. 
I double checked and my mistake. Its
BW Legal

Then it may well end up in a court hearing 

Follow the advice in the second post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements plus the advice and template info in the defence template thread in announcements too 

Post your proposed ending for paragraph 2 and your bespoke paragraph 3 below for critique 

Proposed paragraph 2 ending:

The Defendant denies that a valid contract was formed. The signage at the location was forbidding in nature, stating “Permit Holders Only,” and therefore did not offer any contract to drivers without a permit. In addition, a Newham Council AS2 permit sign was placed on a different post directly opposite the UKCPM sign. This created a clear contradiction about who controls the land, which would confuse any reasonable driver.

Proposed paragraph 3:

The Defendant believes that the conflicting signs and lack of clear markings make it impossible to know whether UKCPM had any legal authority over the space in question. The Claimant is asked to provide strict proof that they had a valid contract with the landowner, clearly marked boundaries, and the correct planning permission for their signs. The Defendant also notes that Rathbone Market (E16) is an area used by both the public and private parties, and without clear bay markings or signs showing the limits of any enforcement zones, no contract could have been agreed.