NOT Registered Keeper, NOT the driver [Claim Defense]

javit

I was not the Driver, I was not the registered Keeper. I was there with the Driver (I never revealed who the driver was), and know he overstayed in the gas station, due to a situation with a missing kid, we stayed due to the kid who passed in front of our car and was registered by our dashcam. We wait for the police to provide footage.
AoS was sent on 13/07/2025 (I assume I still have time to submit my defence).
Please help to write my defence.
Shall I focus on the fact that I am not the registered keeper, and I was not the driver? Eurocar Parks issued the PCN with my name, I imagine, because I am a named driver (provisional driver's license).?
Shall I explain the situation to the overstay?

Coupon-mad

Shall I focus on the fact that I am not the registered keeper, and I was not the driver?

Yes plus the facts re the reason for waiting for the Police. That is your paragraph 3 in the Template Defence - see the NEWBIES thread.

Euro Car Parks won't have issued the first PCN in your name. They can't see your insurance! They are aiming at you because you appealed (that must be the case).

javit

Thanks @Coupon-mad for your quick response:

Below is my defence, please may I ask all the experts to give me your view?(I removed some lines from the template and add some paragraph to adapt my case, in bold):

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: XXXXXX
Between: Euro Car Parks Limited (Claimant)
and XXXXXXXX (Defendant)

---

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.      The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention and was not the registered keeper of the vehicle at any material time, NEVER.

4.      The Claimant has not identified the driver of the vehicle and has provided no evidence to support any liability of the Defendant. The Defendant has not admitted to being the driver, nor has the Defendant been shown to have any legal responsibility for the vehicle.

5.      The Defendant was present as a passenger during the visit to the site, and was aware that the driver remained on the premises due to a 12-year-old child went missing. This was an urgent and distressing situation, and the driver, along with other people nearby, stayed to assist and await the arrival of the police. Given the critical nature of this incident, the driver had no choice but to remain in the parking area. This emergency was captured on the vehicle’s dashcam, which showed the child crossing in front of the vehicle, and police were contacted to resolve the matter.

6.      In accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, only the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle can be pursued for any alleged parking charges. As the Defendant is neither, the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant.

7.      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.

8.      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).

9.      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.

10. 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'.

11. 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'.

12. 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.

13. 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))'.

Gr1pr

In paragraph 2, replace the struck out last sentence with something like the one in 3,  then renumber, trying to condense your changes too

What doesn't make sense is why the claim has your name on it 

ECP clearly obtained keeper details from the dvla database,  sent a pcn to the actual Registered Keeper 

Somehow your name has been given to ECP, possibly by the RK  ?  Or by you 

But either way you must defend the claim   (  this has nothing to do with insurance or your provisional driving licence   )

javit

Thanks @Gr1pr

Those are valid questions. I remember that the initial PCN was in my name, but let's assume it wasn't. I appealed under my name. I never mentioned in the appeal that I was driving, but I  explained the situation about the missing kid.

New version, based on your recommendations.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: XXXXXXXXXX
Between: Euro Car Parks Limited (Claimant)
and xxxxxx (Defendant)

---

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 was not the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention and was not the registered keeper of the vehicle at any material time, NEVER.

3.      The Claimant has not identified the driver of the vehicle and has provided no evidence to support any liability of the Defendant. The Defendant has not admitted to being the driver, nor has the Defendant been shown to have any legal responsibility for the vehicle.

4.      The Defendant was present as a passenger during the visit to the site, and was aware that the driver remained on the premises due to a 12-year-old child went missing. This was an urgent and distressing situation, and the driver, along with other people nearby, stayed to assist and await the arrival of the police. Given the critical nature of this incident, the driver had no choice but to remain in the parking area. This emergency was captured on the vehicle’s dashcam, which showed the child crossing in front of the vehicle, and police were contacted to resolve the matter.

5.      In accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, only the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle can be pursued for any alleged parking charges. As the Defendant is neither, the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant.

6.      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.

7.      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).

8.      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.

9.      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'.

10. 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'.

11. 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.

12. 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))'.

James_Poisson

This makes no sense the original NTK (must have been ANPR) cannot have been in your name if you are not the registered keeper how can it?

So an appeal must have been sent in with your name (and address?) appealing with mitigating circumstances on behalf of the Keeper but the dozy parking company have mistaken this as coming from the keeper or assumed the driver, surely they cannot get anywhere with this they have bagged the wrong person.

They usually get stroppy when a third party appeals anyway they seem to me to have messed up, though the specifics of the situation should have stopped them in their tracks but of course this is as we know all a scam.

James_Poisson

In addition the joint COP states:

Parking operators should consider the spirit of the Appeals Charter when deciding
appeals. For example, where there is clear evidence of illness or emergency this should
be taken into account when deciding whether to uphold the appeal, offer a reduced
settlement or cancel the parking charge.
The Appeals Charter is relevant for all motorists who appeal within the timeframes set at
clause 8.4 who provide evidence to support their position.

Car1980

My question is why are you defending a claim in a way that seems to imply that you are liable? Remember that if you make a statement it is regarded as true and the other side has to disprove it of they disagree. And if you are a mere witness and not the RK, they can't.

I'd just keep it short and sweet, e.g.

1. The Defendant is not the Registered Keeper of vehicle AB1 2CD.

2. The Defendant was not the driver on the day alleged, but was instead a passenger.

3. No contract exists between the Defendant and the Claimant.

4. The Defendant sent an informal email to the Claimant at the time as a witness, but they have falsely assumed that this was sent in the role of the driver.

5.  In accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, only the driver or the Registered Keeper of the vehicle can be pursued for any alleged parking charges. As the Defendant is neither, the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant.

6. Therefore it is submitted that the case should be struck out under CPR 3.4:

(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –

(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

Le_Kirk

If you end up submitting a defence and I, like others, have no idea why your name as "not driver nor RK" has ended up on the claim, a couple of changes for you to consider.  Also have you checked that the words will fit into MCOL?

The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention and was not the registered keeper of the vehicle at any material time, NEVER EVER.

The Defendant was present as a passenger during the visit to the site, and was aware that the driver remained on the premises due to a 12-year-old child who went missing.

javit

Thanks to all for your valuable comments. The Registered Keeper requested from Euro Car Parks (under GDPR) all the information they have for the Vehicle. I will post how this ends.

javit

Car1980 said:

My question is why are you defending a claim in a way that seems to imply that you are liable? Remember that if you make a statement it is regarded as true and the other side has to disprove it of they disagree. And if you are a mere witness and not the RK, they can't.

I'd just keep it short and sweet, e.g.

1. The Defendant is not the Registered Keeper of vehicle AB1 2CD.

2. The Defendant was not the driver on the day alleged, but was instead a passenger.

3. No contract exists between the Defendant and the Claimant.

4. The Defendant sent an informal email to the Claimant at the time as a witness, but they have falsely assumed that this was sent in the role of the driver.

5.  In accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, only the driver or the Registered Keeper of the vehicle can be pursued for any alleged parking charges. As the Defendant is neither, the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant.

6. Therefore it is submitted that the case should be struck out under CPR 3.4:

(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –

(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

Yep, agree on this point, I will go for this short version, which is focusing on the main facts, I was not the driver or the registered Keeper.

Thanks