Excel parking /defence

Coupon-mad

Remove this because Beavis wasn't about keypads: "(ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67)."

Every paragraph needs a number.  Your cause of action estoppel paragraph needs to list both claims and the date (both filed the same day), and the dates and details of the PCNs attached to each claim.

Noenoe

Good afternoon , thank you for your continued support. Please advise on my defence below  Kind regards 

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 allegations and sums claimed are vague. Liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. Interest should be disallowed. The delay in bringing proceedings has prejudiced the Defendant’s ability to retrieve evidence. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct with further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant admits being both registered keeper and driver.

3. The Claimant alleges the Defendant’s full vehicle registration was not recorded. On one occasion the Defendant re-entered the registration due to machine faults. This is not an admission of fault but evidence of system issues.

4.     Valid tickets were purchased on all occasions. Minor keying errors or machine faults where payment was made do not create liability. Responsibility lies with the Claimant’s system. In Excel Parking v Mrs S (2016, County Court), a persuasive authority, the court held that where payment is made in good faith, minor errors or machine faults do not create liability. The Defendant acted in good faith; the Claimant suffered no financial loss.

5.     This claim repeats claim no. [xxxx) issued on 07/07/25 for PCN EP… contravention date 12/24.  involving the same parties, car park and alleged breach. Under CPR 3.4(2)(b), the claim should be struck out.

6.     It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached. To form a contract, there must be offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent here). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71, Sch2 examples 6,10,14,18; s62) requires terms to be fair and prominent. The Claimant reportedly uses unclear/unfair notices and is put to strict proof.

7.     DVLA keeper data is supplied only with landowner authority. The Claimant is put to strict proof of standing, landowner agreement, contract, schedules, and site boundary.

8.     To impose a parking charge, there must be a legitimate interest beyond compensation and adequate notice. Neither has been shown. The PC is a penalty arising from concealed pitfalls, poor signage, and covert surveillance, distinguishable from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB).

9.     The Parking (Code of Practice) Act aims to curb rogue conduct by parking operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). A recent government consultation is considering banning DRA fees, described in 2022 as “extorting money from motorists.” By July 2025, the government noted that DRAs earn significantly higher profits than operators, suggesting excessive market control and a market failure.

10.  Under Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), a claim cannot exceed the unpaid parking charges at the time the notice to the driver was issued. Late fees, which were not disclosed on signage, are not “unpaid parking charges” and are imposed by DRAs. Even if the Claimant complied with POFA and the Code of Practice, there is no legal basis to hold the keeper liable for DRA fees.

11.  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

Yes that'll do.