Advice needed: CLAIM form received on charge given for parking in own resident space

Papier_mache

I've now had this response from my management company:

Thank you for providing us with the evidence of the tickets that have been received.
We have reviewed your evidence and comments against the Leases and set up of the development and can confirm this space is the responsibility of the Leaseholder and not that of XXXXXXXXXX Co. Ltd. With this in mind, we will be reaching out to NPC to request these tickets are expunged as in theory NPC have patrolled and ticketed a bay that XXXXXXXXXXXX Co. Ltd have given them permissions to do so when it isn’t XXXXXXXXXXXXX Co. Ltd’s right to give those permissions. We would like to apologies for any confusion and inconveniences this has caused and would note that we are on your side in this circumstance.

I think that concretely ends the matter unless NPC are silly enough to keep pursuing this further.   When they expunge these tickets I've received I assume the court claim will just be cancelled as well and I won't need to submit a defense?

Castle

Definitely continue with your defence, (there's no "s" in defence), because there are no guarantees when it comes to parking companies.

Coupon-mad

Papier_mache said:

I've now had this response from my management company:

Thank you for providing us with the evidence of the tickets that have been received.
We have reviewed your evidence and comments against the Leases and set up of the development and can confirm this space is the responsibility of the Leaseholder and not that of XXXXXXXXXX Co. Ltd. With this in mind, we will be reaching out to NPC to request these tickets are expunged as in theory NPC have patrolled and ticketed a bay that XXXXXXXXXXXX Co. Ltd have given them permissions to do so when it isn’t XXXXXXXXXXXXX Co. Ltd’s right to give those permissions. We would like to apologies for any confusion and inconveniences this has caused and would note that we are on your side in this circumstance.

I think that concretely ends the matter unless NPC are silly enough to keep pursuing this further.   When they expunge these tickets I've received I assume the court claim will just be cancelled as well and I won't need to submit a defence?

Eek no: you MUST DEFEND because the legal firm are like a conveyor belt & the claim will continue to a CCJ if you fail to defend.

As I mentioned, read this:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html?m=1

and read all about this new landmark residential parking rights case:

https://gatehouselaw.co.uk/duchess-of-bedford-house-trm-co-ltd-v-campden-hill-gate-ltd-2023-ewca-civ-1470/

Further action: This month, we need you:.

PLEASE bookmark this thread below and do Public Consultation if you haven't done it yet.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline! Just 2 weeks left but please don't rush it. You can do some then save it and come back to it as you have time.

Finally, reply to that and thank them for confirming that NPC have no right to enter your bay or run a commercial racket offering it for £100 a day, and as such you are tearing up your joke 'permit' and your bay is officially opted OUT of this unwanted money-grabbing (for NPC) set up.

Copy in NPC's complaints email.

You need to draw a line under this and STOP displaying a permit, going forward, or it looks like you are acceding to this interference with your lease.

Even more finally(!) spread the word with neighbours and share that email that admits they had no right. I bet others have claim forms too. They MUST defend claims; they can't be ignored or everyone affected gets CCJs.

Coupon-mad

Mark_d said:

The charge was issued for not displaying a permit.  It's the same with blue badges.  It doesn't matter if your lost it, or it fell down....it needs to be clearly visible for the parking warden.
The T&C clearly state that you need to have a valid permit clearly displayed on the windscreen.

Not the case on private land when a resident has a demised space. As proven now by the MA admitting NPC had no right.

Papier_mache

Defence statement:

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. The parking space where the PCNs were issued was a residential site where the defendant lives. The defendant’s parking right is stated in the contract of the property without any constraints. It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, the parking bay forms part of the defendants property as demised by the lease agreement , which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay and ‘not to use any car parking space for any purpose other than the parking of one private motor car or one private motor cycle which shall be in a roadworthy condition and shall exhibit a current road fund licence.’ There are no terms within the lease agreement requiring residents to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

The defendant believes the only purpose of hiring NPC to the property is to protect the car park from being used by non-residents. In this case, the defendant has proved himself to be a resident and an authorised user of the car park.  Furthermore, entry to the car park is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.

The management company that services the residential unit and car park have been contacted and stated the following, that they ‘confirm this space is the responsibility of the Leaseholder and not that of XXXXXXXXXXX. With this in mind, we will be reaching out to NPC to request these tickets are expunged as in theory NPC have patrolled and ticketed a bay that XXXXXXXXXX have given them permissions to do so when it isn’t XXXXXXXXXXX’s right to give those permissions.’  This further supports the defendant’s right to park unfettered in their own parking bay.

The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease agreement and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing and pursuing of damages is in fact a matter of harassment, being a private nuisance to residents.

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))'.

I blanked out the management company name but will obviously add it back in when submitting.  Does this read okay? and should I break part 3 into smaller paragraphs i.e renumber the whole article, or make it 3a 3b 3c etc or can i just leave it as a long set of paragraphs?

Thanks again for the assistance

1505grandad

FYI  -  even the latest unregulated CoP (soon to be replaced by a proper regulated PPCoP by the Government) recognise/acknowledge  this scam:-

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW Redesigned Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf

THE SINGLE CODE OF PRACTICE

14

Relationship with landowner 

NOTE 3: Particular care is needed to establish appropriate contractual terms, including the application of parking terms and conditions, in respect of controlled land where leaseholders may have rights that cannot be qualified or overruled e.g. by imposing a requirement on the resident of an apartment block to display a permit to park in contravention of their rights under their lease, or to ensure that free parking periods do not breach planning consents.

Coupon-mad

Yep add that and remove para 10 from the template defence so that the defence fits.

But also renumber your paragraphs before submitting the finished version, as you currently have unnumbered paras there.

Papier_mache

Amended defence statement:

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. The parking space where the PCNs were issued was a residential site where the defendant lives. The defendant’s parking right is stated in the contract of the property without any constraints. It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, the parking bay forms part of the defendants property as demised by the lease agreement , which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay and ‘not to use any car parking space for any purpose other than the parking of one private motor car or one private motor cycle which shall be in a roadworthy condition and shall exhibit a current road fund licence.’ There are no terms within the lease agreement requiring residents to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

4. The defendant believes the only purpose of hiring NPC to the property is to protect the car park from being used by non-residents. In this case, the defendant has proved himself to be a resident and an authorised user of the car park.  Furthermore, entry to the car park is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.

5. The management company that services the residential unit and car park have been contacted and stated the following, that they ‘confirm this space is the responsibility of the Leaseholder and not that of XXXXXXXX. With this in mind, we will be reaching out to NPC to request these tickets are expunged as in theory NPC have patrolled and ticketed a bay that XXXXXXXXX have given them permissions to do so when it isn’t XXXXXXXXX’s right to give those permissions.’  This further supports the defendant’s right to park unfettered in their own parking bay.

6. Furthermore, the defendant would like to highlight the following from the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (introduced by the BPA and in effect from Oct 1st 2024): Section 14.1 (pp27) Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s).  Note 3 of the section further adds: Particular care is needed to establish appropriate contractual terms, including the application of parking terms and conditions, in respect of controlled land where leaseholders may have rights that cannot be qualified or overruled e.g. by imposing a requirement on the resident of an apartment block to display a permit to park in contravention of their rights under their lease, or to ensure that free parking periods do not breach planning consents.  There have been no established contractual terms with between the defendant as leaseholder and the parking control.  These statements continue to confirm the authorised right of the owner/defendant to park in their parking bay and the lack of permission of the parking control to ticket there.

7. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease agreement and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing and pursuing of damages is in fact a matter of harassment, being a private nuisance to residents.

8. 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.

9. 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).

10. 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.

11. 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'.

12. 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'.

13. 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.

Is this all good now?
Thanks as always...

Coupon-mad

I'd remove para 13 which isn't relevant because you are defending as the driver.

You could add back in the usual last paragraph of the Template Defence instead, if it all fits.

After submitting it there's a week left to do the Public Consultation if you haven't already

It's important that residents are heard to explain how their case ended up with a claim. There's a question about what causes cases to reach small claims.

Coupon-mad

Papier_mache said:

Amended defence statement:
Is this all good now?
Thanks as always...

Defended it in time?

Did you manage to do the Consultation?

Deadline extended to next Friday:

FIGHTBACK ALERT:

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

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 over 18 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

CLOSES ON FRIDAY 26th SEPTEMBER.