BW Legal/UK Car Park Management - Claim Form

JPCN

I’m currently drafting the defence for the following claim: UK Car Park Management Limited / BW Legal

• Claim issue Date: 24-Jul-2025

• I have submitted my Acknowledgment of Service (submitted 29/07/25) and I need to file my defence by Tuesday 26-Aug.

Background:
The driver was assisting a disabled person, who held a valid Blue Badge, with their shopping. Unfortunately, there were no available parking spaces at the time, so the vehicle was temporarily parked on a yellow line directly outside the store. A valid Blue Badge was displayed but had accidentally fallen out of view.

I have used the template defense and added the following (Bold text) only:

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 and driver.

3. The Defendant was assisting a disabled individual protected under the Equality Act 2010. A valid Blue Badge was displayed at the time but had unfortunately fallen out of view. Due to the lack of available accessible bays, the vehicle was briefly parked on a yellow line. The Claimant failed to consider the Defendant’s duties under the Equality Act or to make reasonable adjustments, as required. An appeal was submitted and unreasonably rejected without proper consideration of the mitigating circumstances. Furthermore, the vague and generic Particulars of Claim closely resemble those struck out in CEL v Chan (Brentford County Court, 2016) and CPMS v Akande (High Wycombe County Court, 2017). In both cases, the courts dismissed the claims in favour of the defendants, recognising the importance of context, the rights of disabled individuals, and the failure of the claimants to act reasonably or proportionately.

3.1. Furthermore the Defendant believes that the conflicting signs and lack of clear markings make it impossible to know whether UK Car Park Management 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. 

Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Car1980

Post up the exact Particulars of Claim.

"but had unfortunately fallen out of view"

Delete.

JPCN

Thank you @Car1980, I have deleted the text as suggested.

"Particulars of Claim."
The claim is for £170 for an unpaid parking charge following a contractual breach which occured on 29/07/2024 in the private land (lawfully occupied by the Claimant) at Wharfside (Business Park) London (Patrol) by driver of xxxxx registration mark xxxxx. The terms and conditions displayed offered the driver a contractual license, were accepted by the driver upon entry, and subsequently breached. Drivers breach: Parked in a restricted area of the carpark/private land
The Claim also includes £70 recovery costs as set out in the terms and conditions and the ATA AoS Code of practise.

Car1980

The particulars are better than usual, so I'd dispense with Chan etc. I'd use this:

3. The Defendant was assisting a disabled individual protected under the Equality Act 2010. A valid Blue Badge was displayed at the time. Due to the lack of available accessible bays, the vehicle was briefly parked on a yellow line, as it would be entitled to on the public highway. The Claimant failed to consider the Defendant’s duties under the Equality Act or to make reasonable adjustments, as required. 

The Claimant's particulars erroneously state they offered a license, but a term of "no parking in a restricted area" is a forbidding contract. There can be no contract to license no parking. It follows that there can be no agreement to pay a charge for doing so. As there is no contract, there can be no breach of a contract.

An appeal was submitted and unreasonably rejected, so the Claimant has ploughed on regardless and omitted to state they were fully aware of the disabled badge.

Castle

Car1980 said:

The particulars are better than usual, so I'd dispense with Chan etc. I'd use this:

3. The Defendant was assisting a disabled individual protected under the Equality Act 2010. A valid Blue Badge was displayed at the time. Due to the lack of available accessible bays, the vehicle was briefly parked on a yellow line, as it would be entitled to on the public highway. The Claimant failed to consider the Defendant’s duties under the Equality Act or to make reasonable adjustments, as required. 

The Claimant's particulars erroneously state they offered a license, but a term of "no parking in a restricted area" is a forbidding contract. There can be no contract to license no parking. It follows that there can be no agreement to pay a charge for doing so. As there is no contract, there can be no breach of a contract.

An appeal was submitted and unreasonably rejected, so the Claimant has ploughed on regardless and omitted to state they were fully aware of the disabled badge.

I'm just wondering if "briefly stopped" rather than "briefly parked" would be better.

JPCN

Thank you @Car1980 and @Castle
I have incorporated both feedbacks including changing "briefly parked" to  "briefly stopped"

Coupon-mad

And there is no 's' in the noun 'licence' in this country.

  

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

And there is no 's' in the noun 'licence' in this country.

  

Nor defence, you have two defences and one defense.

JPCN

Thank you all for the constructive feedback. Here is the latest para 3 text, I will wait for any further feedback and aim to submit next week.

FYI I just searched my email while putting together the exhibits for the WS and unfortunately I did not go through their appeal process, so I will remove the italic text..

3. The Defendant was assisting a disabled individual protected under the Equality Act 2010. A valid Blue Badge was displayed at the time. Due to the lack of available accessible bays, the vehicle briefly stopped on a yellow line, as it would be entitled to on the public highway. The Claimant failed to consider the Defendant’s duties under the Equality Act or to make reasonable adjustments, as required. 

The Claimant's particulars erroneously state they offered a licence, but a term of "no parking in a restricted area" is a forbidding contract. There can be no contract to licence no parking. It follows that there can be no agreement to pay a charge for doing so. As there is no contract, there can be no breach of a contract.

An appeal was submitted and unreasonably rejected, so the Claimant has ploughed on regardless and omitted to state they were fully aware of the disabled badge.

3.1. The Defendant believes that the conflicting signs and lack of clear markings make it impossible to know whether UK Car Park Management 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.

Coupon-mad

I'd improve this in case the judge doesn't know:

Due to the lack of available accessible bays, the vehicle briefly stopped on a yellow line. Blue Badge holders are entitled to park for up to three hours at kerbs with yellow lines and there was nothing to suggest these yellow lines somehow came with a different meaning.  It was a road; it looked like public highway.

JPCN

Thank you everyone for the feedback and guidance.

The final para 3 which I will submit today looks like this:

3. The Defendant was assisting a disabled individual protected under the Equality Act 2010. A valid Blue Badge was displayed at the time. Due to the lack of available accessible bays, the vehicle briefly stopped on a yellow line. Blue Badge holders are entitled to park for up to three hours at kerbs with yellow lines and there was nothing to suggest these yellow lines somehow came with a different meaning.  It was a road; it looked like public highway.

 The Claimant's particulars erroneously state they offered a licence, but a term of "no parking in a restricted area" is a forbidding contract. There can be no contract to licence no parking. It follows that there can be no agreement to pay a charge for doing so. As there is no contract, there can be no breach of a contract.

3.1. The Defendant believes that the conflicting signs and lack of clear markings make it impossible to know whether UK Car Park Management 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.

All the other para are as per the template