Claim Form Received - National Parking Control at Gym car park

crunch89

Hello,

I have received a claim form dated 16th July 2025.
AOS submitted 24th July 2025
AOS received 25th July 2025.

Some background to the case. Driver was a member of a gym which uses this car park. Quite often this car park is full and is not big enough for the amount of members they have. Car park was full, so driver parked on verge and not in a bay (as had a number of other cars). PCN received in the post - attempted to get this cancelled by the gym, but they refused. Driver is no longer a member of the gym.

Photos of offence included below:







Particulars of Claim:

Gr1pr

Don't call it an offence, it's not, they are alleging a breach of contract,  a contravention of the rules on the signage 

Adapt the template defence in announcements 

NPC are the claimant,  but was it dcb legal that issued the claim   ?  Or a different legal company   ?

crunch89

Draft Defence:

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 21/09/2024, as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

3.1 The driver was a member of the gym that uses the car park. Evidence can be provided of this. On the day in question, no parking spaces were available to park in, as clearly evidence by the number of cars parking on the side of the road. No obstruction had occurred and this did not affect any of the other vehicles in the car park. The driver parked their vehicle in the remaining space without obstructing other parking spaces

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I would appreciate any assistance or advice in this case.

Thank you.

crunch89

Gr1pr said:

Don't call it an offence, it's not, they are alleging a breach of contract,  a contravention of the rules on the signage 

Adapt the template defence in announcements 

NPC are the claimant,  but was it dcb legal that issued the claim   ?  Or a different legal company   ?

DCB Legal issued the claim.

Coupon-mad

I'd get rid of the admission (delete 3.1.) and instead, have this:

3.1.  The driver was a member of the gym and it is habitual practice for members to park at the unmarked kerb as an overflow area. Even if the Claimant's case is that parking at the kerb is not allowed, the signs are sparse and the wording is prohibitive. There is nothing of value offered by a term that says 'no parking'. No contract existed. Even if the court is minded to consider the 'no parking' message as somehow contractual, the headline dark panel at the top of the sign (and at the entrance) clearly identifies the principal 'David Lloyd Clubs'. By any reasonable interpretation, the contracting party is David Lloyd Clubs, not the Claimant, and therefore the Claimant is merely an agent and has no standing to bring a claim in their own name, pursuant to Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169. Any ambiguity must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.