Court Claim for 4 Parking Tickets

MoshFar

Hi All, 

I have received a court claim from London Parking Solutions for parking in front of my flat.  It relates to 4 parking tickets received between 2022 and 2025. 

I have read the newbies and am trying argue a defence due to signage being partially covered by duct tape. Please can you advise on my paragraph 3?

Please see attached for letter of claim and also the signage which shows it being partially covered

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 parked outside their own residential premises, where signage was and remains defective. The main sign relied upon by the Claimant has a key section — the wording under "Parking is permitted for" — obscured by duct tape. This prevents any reasonable motorist from understanding who may park there and under what conditions. The IPC Code of Practice requires that terms be clear, legible and convey the full meaning, which is impossible when material wording is concealed. This lack of transparency breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Sections 62 and 68) and means no clear contractual offer was made. Accordingly, no contract was capable of being formed. The Defendant will rely on contemporaneous dated photographs to evidence the obstruction.

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))'.

Coupon-mad

Can't see which solicitors?

Did you ever appeal?

Why no permit in 2022? 

Are you a tenant? What does your AST say about parking and any right or grant or 'exclusive use' of an allocated bay or generally to use the outside common area for a vehicle, or rights of way, right to peaceful enjoyment and/or the 'Rights of Third Parties Act'?

or flat leaseholder? Same questions about the wording of your lease.

MoshFar

Hi Coupon-mad,

The Solicitor is CSB Solicitors Limited

Unfortunately I did not appeal. The car is registered to my fathers address and I was late to replying to any of them so I decided to ignore. 

Unfortunately I took advise from a neighbour who claimed that they always park in the private parking and the parking company never chase.

I purchased the flat and am the leaseholder. The parking bays in questions are owned by the garage company (Dudrich Holdings Limited) so is completely separate to the flat

Coupon-mad

On what basis do you have a right or grant to use them? Did you ever have a permit?

Still live there? What does the lease say about the common area outside?

MoshFar

I don't have a right or grant to use them and I never have had a permit. 

I still live there and the lease doesn't seem to make any mention about the area outside. In front of the flats, there is a garage area which separate to the flat and includes 5 parking bays.  There is side street parking further up the road where everybody usually parks 

MoshFar

Sorry I think I misunderstood the first question. You have to pay £40 per month to the garage company to receive a valid permit

Coupon-mad

MoshFar said:

I don't have a right or grant to use them and I never have had a permit. 

I still live there and the lease doesn't seem to make any mention about the area outside. In front of the flats, there is a garage area which separate to the flat and includes 5 parking bays.  There is side street parking further up the road where everybody usually parks 

OK, so trying another tactic, are the photos for the PCNs only showing the car was there for two minutes each time?

Probably. If yes, your paras 3, 4 and 5 could say (and renumber the rest of the template accordingly):

3.   The Defendant stopped briefly outside their own residential premises, where signage was and remains defective. The main sign relied upon by the Claimant has a key section — the wording under "Parking is permitted for" — obscured by duct tape. This prevents any reasonable motorist from understanding who may park there and under what conditions. The IPC Code of Practice ('CoP') requires that terms be clear, legible and convey the full meaning, which is impossible when material wording is concealed. This lack of transparency breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Sections 62 and 68) and means no clear contractual offer was made. Accordingly, no contract was capable of being formed.

4.  Further, it is denied that the vehicle 'parked or remained' (i.e. was left unattended in that place for a period of time). It is believed that the vehicle was covertly photographed only for a minute or two on these occasions, which breaches the CoP requirement for a fair consideration period. The sign relates only to vehicles that are 'parked or remain' and it is silent about loading/unloading. It is averred that the driver had probably stopped there only momentarily, for unloading with ease of access to the flat. The car is normally parked on a nearby unrestricted side road, so there would be no reason to park and leave the vehicle for a long period in the place where the residents' habitual practice for years has been to use that area to temporarily load or unload only.  The Defendant relies upon the persuasive appeal judgment by His Honour Judge Harris in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E at Oxford County Court, where it was held that a resident stopping to unload does not constitute parking and any parking signs were irrelevant:
 "Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading [...] must be a question of fact or degree. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable".

5.  In the alternative, the term to display a permit was impossible to perform (the Defendant has no access to a permit). There was no offer of a licence to park for drivers who don't hold permits. At best, the landowner (freeholder of the garage area) might have been able to allege trespass but that has not been pleaded. Authorities include the decision by DJ Iyer at Manchester County Court in PACE Recovery v Lengyel [2017] C7GF6E3R where the learned Judge noted that the phrase “terms and conditions” is not synonymous with a contract and that a sign that offered no permission to non-permit holders was void for impossibility.

And improve the sentence about interest in para 2 to read:

At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the long delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant and they have attempted to calculate the entire quantum from a date in 2022 before some of the parking events even occurred, let alone at a point when any of the charges could have been considered 'overdue'.


To fit all that in, delete the final paragraph of the template about discontinuations, which I doubt will happen in a 4 PCN case anyway! Hopefully then it will all fit into MCOL.

I'd say you should also remove this from paragraph 1 because the Claim isn't that poorly pleaded: "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'."

And remove this from the end of what was para 9 because you are the admitted driver:

"Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees."

MoshFar

The car was parked there overnight for each ticket. I was parking the car everyday as they rarely used to come, however when they did come, it would usually be early morning to see which cars were parked overnight 

Thank you for your help thus far 

MoshFar

Also I believe they don't keep evidence of how long a car is parked there as they would visit the area every few months, take pictures on that day and leave 

Coupon-mad

You are missing the point. They will only have evidence photos of the car there for minutes.

MoshFar

Ahhh okay. I will write up another draft and and put the defense through. Will update the thread accordingly. Thank you!