Help need with claim defense urgent.

Le_Kirk

wdz said:

YES I  submit AOS . Thank you so much @Coupon-mad  and @Gr1pr
 
Now Second Step is to prepare template. Will be back shortly with template

Thanks Everyone  

Hopefully you mean use the template to prepare defence!  It is the defence we want to see for critique.

wdz

Yes I mean defence template. I have edit @Coupon-mad defence template and only touch part 2 and 3 for my case. Can you please review it for me anything need to update .
Thanks you all

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 £100 parking charge 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 the hirer and driver of the vehicle on the material date. The Defendant recalls that no parking took place, only a brief attempt to locate a space followed by an immediate decision to exit. The delay recorded by the Claimant was caused solely by the van becoming temporarily stuck in a very narrow exit corridor, compounded by vehicles queued behind, and does not constitute parking or acceptance of contractual terms.

3. The Particulars of Claim appear to allege that the Defendant 'parked without payment' or 'failed to purchase a valid ticket'. This is denied.

3.1 No parking space was available on the ground floor or the lower level at the time of entry.

3.2 The Defendant did not park, leave the vehicle, or make use of the Claimant’s facilities.

3.3 While attempting to exit, the van became stuck in the extremely narrow underground exit, which required slow and careful manoeuvring.

3.4 This manoeuvring delay was unavoidable and cannot reasonably be construed as parking or an acceptance of contractual terms.

3.5 The car park signage fails to specify any grace period for drivers to enter, assess availability, and exit without charge, contrary to the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

3.6 The Defendant subsequently parked in a Nottingham City Council car park shortly after leaving the site, evidenced by a bank statement, which further proves that the Claimant’s car park was not used.

3.7 The Defendant also has an eye-witness who was present in the vehicle and can provide a statement confirming the above sequence of events.

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

That's great - good work!

wdz

Thank you @Coupon-mad
I will submit now.

I will upate on outcome. 

Gr1pr

Theres more to it than waiting for the outcome  ( we all knowwhatthe outcomewill be  ),  numerous steps and stages to follow,  so keep studying the 2 announcements to see what comes next, and after that,  the 8 steps will help you through it

Eventually there will be an outcome,  next year 

wdz

Hi All,
I submit my defence claim. There was an option to pay £35 but it doest not took me to the payment option. So i did not pay anything and submit.

Will i recive letter to pay or how will it work.? Or I did something wrong and need to redo the process again.

Thanks

Gr1pr

If its been submitted  ( free  ) it's in  ( you dont pay a penny   )

Check your MCOL claim history this week 

As for what happens next, it's in the 8 steps in the defence template thread , so a lot more research required regarding the first post in that thread