Euro Car Parks Claim Form & Legal Defence

Gr1pr

That looks nothing like the template defence 

Le_Kirk

^^^ Agreed and you cannot use Chan & Akande as they have clearly pleaded the breach in the POC.

MonkeyBalls2

Thanks I've seen the light & I'll be back.

MonkeyBalls2

Here's the MK 2 hopefully using the proper template?

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 who was the registered keeper & owner of vehicle GU63AOY on 19/11/2022 denies any contractual obligation was given or entered into due to the signage at Bell Walk Shopping Centre being inadequate. The defendant recalls the car park being dark & the signage being poorly illuminated & dirty, even returning to his car to ask his passenger to also examine the sign. The only information that could be clearly ascertained was that two hours free parking was allowed. A two hour window that the defendant complied with & the mere few minutes either side of that time are deemed a reasonable grace period to enter the car park, find a suitable space, read the signage, unpack & secure the vehicle & on return open & pack the vehicle & leave in an orderly fashion. 

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

Gr1pr

Add AND driver to the end of paragraph 2, if true 

In 3 , Ownership is irrelevant,  so remove AND OWNER

MonkeyBalls2

Thanks can do! 

So I just send it via MCOL & will all that currently fit on their page? 

Also I've heard of people going to court only to find out the claimants discontinued last minute, is this common as taking a day off work for nothing would suck.

Gr1pr

You can check if it fits by copying and pasting it into MCOL,  then save   ( but don't submit it yet   )

Dont worry about the future,  stick to the process, no getting ahead of yourself 

Coupon-mad

Defence now looks fine! It'll fit on MCOL.

I know I already posted about this earlier on your thread but it's now on the previous page. Have you bookmarked it? I don't want you to forget!

Please read this message and do the vital,  current Public Consultation:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81552148/#Comment_81552148

It's important that the Government hears from people with unfair charges who are facing horrific, scary court claims.

The link shows the two vital points to concentrate on, IMHO:

- banning 'fee' add-ons completely.

- making sure a new SINGLE appeals service replaces POPLA and the IAS which are seen as not fully independent and involved in a 'race to the bottom'.

Click through to the main thread about the Consultation, Do not be deterred by the fact that some questions are for the parking industry only.

We are currently discussing how to respond. Please join us in doing this Consultation before it closes in three weeks. This is your one chance to make a difference re the proper regulation of private parking.

MonkeyBalls2

Thanks for the help chaps, I'll look into that consultation. 
Is there any any particular reason why I should wait to submit my defence & if so how long should I wait?

Gr1pr

no need to wait if its complete, no advantage at all