PCN County Court Claim - HELP!!

rogerthat20

Hello, 

I received a private PCN from UKCPS LTD on the 14th of May 2024 at Northern Lights car park in Liverpool. This car park is part of a music rehearsal space (as well as other local businesses), which I was using on the day for a 2-hour booking, which I'd be able to prove if necessary. The rehearsal room states that each rehearsal room booking is allowed to park one vehicle in the car park, which is why I parked here; however, it turns out the rehearsal room needs to give you a temporary permit for the time, which I wasn't given and therefore received a PCN. 

When I initially received the PCN, I just ignored it after reading advice on this forum, and after a few months of nagging, the letters stopped, and I thought that was that. However, I've since received a County Court Claim and I intend to fight it, but I really do need a hand as I don't have a clue what I'm doing. 

Also, probably irrelevant, but the vehicle which received the PCN I no longer own as I sold this vehicle a few months ago. I'll attach a photo of the claim below. 

I'm just about to submit my AOS. I'm aware I've only got until Friday to do this, so I'll do it in the next hour. And then I'll draft my defence and keep you all posted here, but any advice at any stage would help massively and will just calm my nerves haha!

Thanks in advance. 

[Image removed by Forum Team]

Gr1pr

That UNREDACTED picture needs reporting for removal ASAP,  due to the unredacted private information on show

UKCPS via Moorside Legal,  issue date 18th July,  inadequate POC, unspecified,  so the AOS is done on MCOL first, then draft the defence using the template defence with Chan and Akande added, same as all the other Moorside Legal cases on here

The fact that you no longer own the vehicle is irrelevant,  yes, it was yours at the time 

Coupon-mad

Redacted version:

Copy any Moorside defence from July. All the same. All cite Chan and Akande.

rogerthat20

Hello again, 

Firstly, thank you for being so responsive in such early stages of my thread. I'm now moving onto my defence and trying not to be stupid and miss out things that have been noted in the newbies threads; however, I've got a couple of questions. 

I've seen that the defence should exceed 30 paragraphs but I can see anymore than 13 on the template, I have my suspicions that's it's been recently updated and is not shorter but I just wanted to check I'm not missing out half of the template defence. 

Also, below is my paragraph 6. Would someone be able to look over it and make sure I'm not saying too much that isn't necessary or if I should also include some proof, such as rehearsal room booking confirmation? Or if there's anything that would make the paragraph stronger, also let me know! 

6. On the material date, the Defendant had a valid booking at Sort Rehearsal Rooms and was parked for approximately two hours directly outside the premises, as was customary and permitted for customers. The Defendant was informed by the venue that each booking entitled the customer to park one vehicle on-site. However, the venue failed to inform the Defendant of the need to obtain or display a temporary parking permit. At no time was it made clear that failure to display such a permit would result in a parking charge. The Defendant acted in good faith and reasonably believed that they were entitled to park as part of their contractual arrangement with the venue.

Thanks in advance. 

Le_Kirk

You are quite right, the template defence was edited recently by its author, @Coupon-mad and is now 10 paragraphs long (although para #10 can be removed if the defence will not fit into the MCOL box).  It appears you are not looking at the template properly as your extra paragraph is showing up as #6, whereas it should be, and always was, #3.  Also, I think it is too long; just keep to the fact that there was a valid booking which authorised two hours parking outside the premises and keep the story for the witness statement some weeks down the line.

Gr1pr

It was updated in the middle of July 2025,  so is now around 10 to 13 paragraphs,  not 30 plus

Use the new template,  the ONLY defence template in that announcements thread

No exhibits are submitted with the defence,  the time for submission is the Witness statement in several months time,  follow the court process,  no deviation 

rogerthat20

Hello, 

Thanks for the help again. Here is my draft defense, please let me know if I've got something wrong. I wanted to add the small claim specific details but also wanted to reference Chan and Akande so I added an extra paragraph but deleted template paragraph 10. Let me know if this works please. 

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 and driver.

3. With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'."

4. On the material date, the Defendant had a valid booking at Sort Rehearsal Rooms and was parked for approximately two hours directly outside the premises, as was customary and permitted for customers. The Defendant was informed by the venue that each booking entitled the customer to park one vehicle on-site. The Defendant acted in good faith and reasonably believed that they were entitled to park as part of their contractual arrangement with the venue.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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'.

9. 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'.

10. 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.

Gr1pr

Looks OK, please note the spelling of the word Defence,  no s , in future, in UK litigation,  it's important to try to use the correct English terminology and spelling ( but hopefully there are no other errors   )

rogerthat20

Thanks @Gr1pr

I don't suppose you'd be able to tell me how long I have to submit my defence? I'm planning to submit it this Friday, but I live locally to the car park and I want to swing by to take a photo of the signs to make sure the signs have the correct T&C's etc, and make sure I'm covering all bases. 

Gr1pr

By 4pm on 20th August,  so 2 weeks from today 

No exhibits are submitted with the defence,  but yes obtain the pictures for later on,  in several months time,  plus ensure that your defence is correct once you have the pictures 

Coupon-mad

Remove this:

"for approximately two hours"

and remove the FINAL sentence at the end because they aren't relying on keeper liability in your case.

And then stick around next week please to do the Public Consultation that's now open.