Help with my defence statement | Draft Paragraph 3 | Premier Park, BW Legal Court Claim 2025

Coupon-mad

Just type your facts. You know those; we don't! Respond to the allegation in the POC.

Le_Kirk

The POC state you were parked for longer than permitted; either you were or you weren't because a) you left the car park at ......... and can prove it OR b) you paid for a ticket for XX hours and you can prove it OR c) the signs didn't state there was a maximum time or any limit ...........

mymisc2839

Gr1pr said:

You definitely need a paragraph 3, otherwise it would not be there,  that section is for your bespoke defence against the allegation,  the rest of the template is common legal arguments,  common to all defendants

I won't be suggesting anything,  because its your paragraph to write , not mine, not ours, but as you wrote one earlier,  why not strike out the invalid arguments  ? The parts that prompted my reply   ?

My point is don't use irrelevant points like not receiving paperwork if you hadn't updated your V5c document, it's not a valid point, easily countered by the claimant,  their argument would be,  it's the defendants fault due to not updating their v5c after moving, a legal requirement,  their responsibility,  their problem,  but we followed correct protocols because we traced their correct address before starting the legal process 

I'm a bit stuck then because my two defences were:
1. I was doing a big shop. Literally furnishing a whole house, so I went over the free 3 hours of parking.
However @Not_A_Hope said that's not a valid reason.

2. Not sending letters to my address.
But as you mentioned, I should have updated my V5C. 

So, what else do I have? Could really just do with some suggestions please.

Gr1pr

mymisc2839 said:

Gr1pr said:

You definitely need a paragraph 3, otherwise it would not be there,  that section is for your bespoke defence against the allegation,  the rest of the template is common legal arguments,  common to all defendants

I won't be suggesting anything,  because its your paragraph to write , not mine, not ours, but as you wrote one earlier,  why not strike out the invalid arguments  ? The parts that prompted my reply   ?

My point is don't use irrelevant points like not receiving paperwork if you hadn't updated your V5c document, it's not a valid point, easily countered by the claimant,  their argument would be,  it's the defendants fault due to not updating their v5c after moving, a legal requirement,  their responsibility,  their problem,  but we followed correct protocols because we traced their correct address before starting the legal process 

I'm a bit stuck then because my two defences were:
I was doing a big shop.  Literally furnishing a whole house, so I went over the free 3 hours of parking.

1) However @Not_A_Hope said that's not a valid reason.

2. Not sending letters to my address.
But as you mentioned, I should have updated my V5C. 

So, what else do I have? Could really just do with some suggestions please.

1) correct,  that point was tested at the Supreme Court 10 years ago, think Beavis, so you cannot argue that aspect 

2) correct,  that was a legal requirement error by the Registered keeper , not an error by the claimant 

Leaving you with

Literally furnishing a whole house, so I went over the free 3 hours of parking.

So that statement is what you must work with, in the correct terminology,  so maybe something like this if its all true ( you should be telling us what you have,  why you are not liable for the pcn  )

The driver defendant was a legitimate customer at the businesses on that retail park,  needing plenty of time to shop. No signage was seen or noted regarding any time limitations, so the defendant was completely unaware of any deadlines 

Work on that aspect which is about the driver not seeing signs, inadequate signage,  genuine customer etc

Why was the 3 hour deadline not on your mind during the visit   ? The Supreme Court concluded that all that is needed was a watch !  You probably could have set reminders on your mobile phone etc

Let's assume that the entry was at 1pm making the 3 hour maximum stay exit deadline 4pm, why did you not think about getting back to the vehicle at say 3.30pm  and leaving  ?  It should have been on your mind by 2.5 hours in

Ps, you haven't even told us who the claimant is,  or the lawyers either, just a mysterious THEY,  so please change your thread title to something more suitable like 

UKPC , DCB LEGAL COURT CLAIM 2025

Or something similar,  with the correct names 

mymisc2839

Le_Kirk said:

The POC state you were parked for longer than permitted; either you were or you weren't because a) you left the car park at ......... and can prove it OR b) you paid for a ticket for XX hours and you can prove it OR c) the signs didn't state there was a maximum time or any limit ...........

Thanks, sorry I didn't see this response. 
I haven't been back to the site. But It was free to park but you had to leave before 3 hours was exceeded. I didn't see this. I'm not saying the signs weren't there. They probably were. But I didn't see them. I have just always known it to be a free car park. So I wasn't considering the T&C.

mymisc2839

Gr1pr said:

mymisc2839 said:

Gr1pr said:

You definitely need a paragraph 3, otherwise it would not be there,  that section is for your bespoke defence against the allegation,  the rest of the template is common legal arguments,  common to all defendants

I won't be suggesting anything,  because its your paragraph to write , not mine, not ours, but as you wrote one earlier,  why not strike out the invalid arguments  ? The parts that prompted my reply   ?

My point is don't use irrelevant points like not receiving paperwork if you hadn't updated your V5c document, it's not a valid point, easily countered by the claimant,  their argument would be,  it's the defendants fault due to not updating their v5c after moving, a legal requirement,  their responsibility,  their problem,  but we followed correct protocols because we traced their correct address before starting the legal process 

I'm a bit stuck then because my two defences were:
I was doing a big shop.  Literally furnishing a whole house, so I went over the free 3 hours of parking.

1) However @Not_A_Hope said that's not a valid reason.

2. Not sending letters to my address.
But as you mentioned, I should have updated my V5C. 

So, what else do I have? Could really just do with some suggestions please.

1) correct,  that point was tested at the Supreme Court 10 years ago, think Beavis, so you cannot argue that aspect 

2) correct,  that was a legal requirement error by the Registered keeper , not an error by the claimant 

Leaving you with

Literally furnishing a whole house, so I went over the free 3 hours of parking.

So that statement is what you must work with, in the correct terminology,  so maybe something like this if its all true ( you should be telling us what you have,  why you are not liable for the pcn  )

The driver defendant was a legitimate customer at the businesses on that retail park,  needing plenty of time to shop. No signage was seen or noted regarding any time limitations, so the defendant was completely unaware of any deadlines 

Work on that aspect which is about the driver not seeing signs, inadequate signage,  genuine customer etc

Why was the 3 hour deadline not on your mind during the visit   ? The Supreme Court concluded that all that is needed was a watch !  You probably could have set reminders on your mobile phone etc

Let's assume that the entry was at 1pm making the 3 hour maximum stay exit deadline 4pm, why did you not think about getting back to the vehicle at say 3.30pm  and leaving  ?  It should have been on your mind by 2.5 hours in

Ps, you haven't even told us who the claimant is,  or the lawyers either, just a mysterious THEY,  so please change your thread title to something more suitable like 

UKPC , DCB LEGAL COURT CLAIM 2025

Or something similar,  with the correct names 

I appreciate your help. All of what you said is true. I didn't see the signs so I was unaware of the deadlines. I think I'll just go with something like that for my 3rd paragraph. If it fails, it fails.

I have mentioned the claimant and lawyers further up the thread.

Gr1pr

You should still alter the thread title so that its more relevant throughout the process,  not just now, because its going to take 6 to 12 months of work, paperwork,  research etc

Premier Park  , B W LEGAL COURT CLAIM 2025

This statement of yours is also relevant,  especially if the T & Cs changed 

I haven't been back to the site. But It was free to park but you had to leave before 3 hours was exceeded. I didn't see this. I'm not saying the signs weren't there. They probably were. But I didn't see them. I have just always known it to be a free car park. So I wasn't considering the T&C.

mymisc2839

Gr1pr said:

You should still alter the thread title so that its more relevant throughout the process,  not just now, because its going to take 6 to 12 months of work, paperwork,  research etc

Premier Park  , B W LEGAL COURT CLAIM 2025

This statement of yours is also relevant,  especially if the T & Cs changed 

I haven't been back to the site. But It was free to park but you had to leave before 3 hours was exceeded. I didn't see this. I'm not saying the signs weren't there. They probably were. But I didn't see them. I have just always known it to be a free car park. So I wasn't considering the T&C.

Thank you.
Ok, I have revised it to this:

The defendant was a genuine customer of the retail park businesses and required a reasonable amount of time to shop. No signage was observed or brought to the defendant’s attention regarding any parking time restrictions, and accordingly the defendant was wholly unaware of any such limitation. The defendant has always understood the car park to operate on a free-to-use basis and therefore had no reason to consider the existence of detailed terms and conditions. While it is accepted that signage may have been present, it was not sufficiently prominent or clear to have been seen or appreciated by the defendant, and under the principle established in Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000], terms that are not adequately brought to the attention of a motorist cannot be binding.

Is this good to go?
@Coupon-mad @Not_a_hope feel free to give some feedback.

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do the job. Get it all submitted.

Then stick around to do the Public Consultation if you and the other drivers in your family haven't done it yet.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline! Just 2 weeks left but please don't rush it. You can do some then save it and come back to it as you have time.

And we understand that you may need some pointers.

I'm taking a closer look this week and we'll walk you through it. I should have all the first post 'how to respond to each question' advice ready by the end of this week. There are vital points to safeguard motorists interests to make, that many people won't think of/need focus.

There won't be a template - the survey is for you to reply in your words - but we'll help everyone with what to focus on.