ECP MCOL Defence - AI Generated

ParkingIdiot69

Long time listener, first time caller here. After receiving a court claim I got chat-gpt to write the following defence. I plan to incorporate the defence template from the other thread into this but would be interested to know peoples thoughts on the AI generated version (there are some similarities between this and the template). And whether this is a viable option for drafting responses to these claims.

1. Introduction
1.1 The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant for the
sum claimed or any amount at all.
1.2 The Defendant asserts that the alleged parking charge is
unenforceable due to the Claimant’s failure to provide a
functioning payment facility.

2. Background
2.1 On xx/xx/2023, the Defendant parked at Treaty Centre
Hounslow, a car park advertised as pay-on-exit.
2.2 The Defendant entered the car park on the understanding that
payment would be made upon leaving, as per the signage and the
nature of the system.
2.3 Upon exiting, the Defendant attempted to pay the required
fee, but the payment machine was out of order, displaying an error
message and not accepting payment.
2.4 The Defendant could not pre-pay because the car park operates
on a pay-on-exit basis, meaning the fee is calculated upon
departure.
2.5 The Defendant acted in good faith and attempted to comply
with the terms but was prevented by the Claimant’s failure to
provide a working payment machine.

3. Frustration of Contract
3.1 The Claimant’s failure to provide a working payment facility
rendered it impossible for the Defendant to perform their
contractual obligation to pay.
3.2 Under common law, a contract is discharged when performance
becomes impossible through no fault of the Defendant.
3.3 The principle of frustration of contract is supported by case
law such as Taylor v Caldwell (1863), which establishes that a
contract is discharged when performance becomes impossible through
no fault of the parties.

4. Breach of Consumer Rights and Unfair Terms
4.1 Under Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must
be fair and transparent. It is unfair to penalise a consumer for
non-payment when the Claimant’s own failure prevented compliance.
4.2 The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice
requires operators to maintain payment systems. The Claimant
breached this obligation.
4.3 The Claimant has not provided machine maintenance or audit
logs to prove the machine was operational. The Defendant puts the
Claimant to strict proof of this.

5. No Contract Formed
5.1 A contract requires offer, acceptance, and consideration. The
Defendant could not provide consideration (payment) because the
Claimant failed to provide the means stated in the contract
(signage).
5.2 Any purported contract is void for impossibility of
performance.
5.3 In contrast to ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where
clear and transparent terms were upheld, here the terms were
contradictory and performance was rendered impossible.

6. Failure to Mitigate Loss
6.1 The Claimant suffered no genuine loss. The Defendant attempted
to pay but was prevented from doing so by the Claimant’s
failure.

7. Inconsistencies and Lack of Clarity
7.1 The Claimant’s appeal response contains contradictory
statements regarding the nature of the car park. It refers to the
site as both “pay on exit” and “pay and display”, which are
fundamentally different systems.
7.2 This inconsistency demonstrates that the terms were not clear
or transparent, contrary to the requirements of the Consumer
Rights Act 2015.
7.3 In the aforementioned appeal response, the Claimant asserts
that “machines are working fine” without providing any evidence
such as maintenance logs or audit reports. The Defendant puts the
Claimant to strict proof of this assertion.
7.4 The Claimant's appeal response claims that there was a RingGo
app payment option available, yet the signage contained no mention
of RingGo or instructions for its use. A consumer cannot be bound
by hidden or undisclosed terms. The omission of RingGo from
signage renders any alleged obligation to use it invalid. This
omission breaches the British Parking Association Code of Practice
and further supports that the terms were not adequately
communicated.

8. Conclusion
8.1 Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully submits that the claim
discloses no cause of action and should be dismissed in its
entirety.
8.2 The Defendant reserves the right to claim costs pursuant to
CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct by the Claimant.

Gr1pr

Probably too long,  stick to the template defence by coupon mad,  no AI, just intelligent people, same as used by all the others on here 

Save the explanations and your AI text above for your Witness Statement next year

kryten3000

AI LLM and legal documents is not a good combination.

Coupon-mad

ParkingIdiot69 said:

Long time listener, first time caller here. After receiving a court claim I got chat-gpt to write the following defence. I plan to incorporate the defence template from the other thread into this but would be interested to know peoples thoughts on the AI generated version (there are some similarities between this and the template). And whether this is a viable option for drafting responses to these claims.

1. Introduction
1.1 The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant for the
sum claimed or any amount at all.
1.2 The Defendant asserts that the alleged parking charge is
unenforceable due to the Claimant’s failure to provide a
functioning payment facility.

2. Background
2.1 On xx/xx/2023, the Defendant parked at Treaty Centre
Hounslow, a car park advertised as pay-on-exit.
2.2 The Defendant entered the car park on the understanding that
payment would be made upon leaving, as per the signage and the
nature of the system.
2.3 Upon exiting, the Defendant attempted to pay the required
fee, but the payment machine was out of order, displaying an error
message and not accepting payment.
2.4 The Defendant could not pre-pay because the car park operates
on a pay-on-exit basis, meaning the fee is calculated upon
departure.
2.5 The Defendant acted in good faith and attempted to comply
with the terms but was prevented by the Claimant’s failure to
provide a working payment machine.

3. Frustration of Contract
3.1 The Claimant’s failure to provide a working payment facility
rendered it impossible for the Defendant to perform their
contractual obligation to pay.
3.2 Under common law, a contract is discharged when performance
becomes impossible through no fault of the Defendant.
3.3 The principle of frustration of contract is supported by case
law such as Taylor v Caldwell (1863), which establishes that a
contract is discharged when performance becomes impossible through
no fault of the parties.

4. Breach of Consumer Rights and Unfair Terms
4.1 Under Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must
be fair and transparent. It is unfair to penalise a consumer for
non-payment when the Claimant’s own failure prevented compliance.
4.2 The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice
requires operators to maintain payment systems. The Claimant
breached this obligation.
4.3 The Claimant has not provided machine maintenance or audit
logs to prove the machine was operational. The Defendant puts the
Claimant to strict proof of this.

5. No Contract Formed
5.1 A contract requires offer, acceptance, and consideration. The
Defendant could not provide consideration (payment) because the
Claimant failed to provide the means stated in the contract
(signage).
5.2 Any purported contract is void for impossibility of
performance.
5.3 In contrast to ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where
clear and transparent terms were upheld, here the terms were
contradictory and performance was rendered impossible.

6. Failure to Mitigate Loss
6.1 The Claimant suffered no genuine loss. The Defendant attempted
to pay but was prevented from doing so by the Claimant’s
failure.

7. Inconsistencies and Lack of Clarity
7.1 The Claimant’s appeal response contains contradictory
statements regarding the nature of the car park. It refers to the
site as both “pay on exit” and “pay and display”, which are
fundamentally different systems.
7.2 This inconsistency demonstrates that the terms were not clear
or transparent, contrary to the requirements of the Consumer
Rights Act 2015.
7.3 In the aforementioned appeal response, the Claimant asserts
that “machines are working fine” without providing any evidence
such as maintenance logs or audit reports. The Defendant puts the
Claimant to strict proof of this assertion.
7.4 The Claimant's appeal response claims that there was a RingGo
app payment option available, yet the signage contained no mention
of RingGo or instructions for its use. A consumer cannot be bound
by hidden or undisclosed terms. The omission of RingGo from
signage renders any alleged obligation to use it invalid. This
omission breaches the British Parking Association Code of Practice
and further supports that the terms were not adequately
communicated.

8. Conclusion
8.1 Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully submits that the claim
discloses no cause of action and should be dismissed in its
entirety.
8.2 The Defendant reserves the right to claim costs pursuant to
CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct by the Claimant.

Start again with the Template Defence. I only leave people one paragraph to write & I tell everyone what to put!

Or you could copy & very easily adapt any recent Euro Car Parks DCB Legal defence.

You don't need Chat GPT or similar. It doesn't know what it's doing.

  

ParkingIdiot69

Thanks for the advice, i have revised my defence to the following, using the template and also some of the wording used by Shincliff in a similar case here. 

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 and driver.

 

3. On 22/08/2023, the Defendant parked at Treaty Centre Hounslow,

a car park advertised as pay-on-exit. The Defendant entered the

car park on the understanding that payment would be made upon

leaving, as per the signage and the nature of the system.

Upon exiting, the Defendant attempted to pay the required fee of

£2.00, but the payment machine was out of order, displaying an

error message and not accepting payment. The same error message

was shown on all the machines on the site.

The Defendant could not pre-pay because the car park operates on a

pay-on-exit basis, meaning the fee is calculated upon departure.

The Defendant was prevented from making a payment by the

Claimant’s failure to provide a working payment machine. The

contract required payment at the machine, which was inoperable. No

alternative method was required or proven to be usable. A portion

of the Defendant's stay in the car park was spent locating the

alternative machines within the car park, all of which proved to

be inoperable.

While the signage includes the logo and website of “ECPparkbuddy” 

there is no written explanation, nor any instruction to use it. 

This contrasts sharply with the repeated and explicit instructions 

to pay at the machine. The vague reference to “ECPparkbuddy” is 

therefore ambiguous, confusing, and misleading—particularly as it 

appears beneath instructions explicitly directing drivers to use 

the payment machine. The operator should not be permitted to claim 

that app-based payment formed part of the contract for the 

following reasons:

1. Contractual obligations must be clearly communicated and 

understood at the time of agreement;

2. Under section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, ambiguous 

terms must be interpreted in the consumer’s favour;

3. Euro Car Parks never stated that app payment was a required or 

contractually equivalent method of compliance.

In short, if the operator intended payment by a phone app to form 

part of the contract, it was their responsibility to say so 

clearly. They did not. Payment at the machine was the only 

enforceable method.

 

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.

Based 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.

Grateful for any comments before i hit submit!

Le_Kirk

Will that all fit in the box on MCOL?  If not, you could cut down paragraph #3 to the bare bones just citing failure of all PDTs and save the longer story for your witness statement.

Gr1pr

I agree,  far too much detail for a defence,  save the stories for the Witness Statement next year,  a typical defence in an official case might be,  Not Guilty,  (  no comment,  no stories etc  )

Any statements tend to come later

Ensure that it fits into the 122 lines,  as mentioned above 

Coupon-mad

I think it will fit. It is a little repetitive about the inoperable machines so you could rein that in. Then once it is submitted:

FIGHTBACK ALERT:

Please do the government's Public Consultation. We need every poster to complete this vital survey before the deadline.

See this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-now-extended-closes-friday-26th-september/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law. 

I've written some guidance to help focus new posters on the issues. I've covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

CLOSES ON FRIDAY 26th SEPTEMBER.