Defence needed for court case

CanineLover

Hi all,

I’ve received a county court claim from  Private Parking Company about a parking charge notice that dates back to 2023.

I wasn’t the driver at the time. I gave the driver’s details in writing and posted them to the parking company within the required timeframe. Unfortunately, as this was a few years ago, I no longer have proof of postage.

Despite this, the company is pursuing me as the registered keeper and have now issued a court claim.

I need help with a defence. As i got helped here before i’m back! acknowledged service on MCOL, but I don’t know what to include in my defence since I was not the driver and already provided their details.

Has anyone dealt with a similar case, and can you point me towards the right defence template or steps?

Thanks in advance for any guidance.

Le_Kirk

Can you show us the Claim Form, first having redacted all your personal information, VRM, claim reference number and password. We need to see the POC, that way we can guide you to which parts of the template defence to use.  The template defence is one of the announcements on the first page of the forum and, if you check out the NEWBIE sticky, another of the announcements, you will find the guidance how to submit the AoS and get and extra 28 days to file your defence.

CanineLover

AoS is done, im at the stage where i need to submit my defence.

Gr1pr

Is it ECP  ?  or a different parking company   ?  (  who  ?  )

10th August was your defence deadline date, so login to MCOL and copy and paste your claim history below,  because the claimant may have put the hammer down already ( I assume that the issue date was 8th July ?  )

Most of your defence is written by coupon mad in announcements,  in the defence template thread 

CanineLover

Gr1pr said:

Is it ECP  ?  or a different parking company   ?  (  who  ?  )

10th August was your defence deadline date, so login to MCOL and copy and paste your claim history below,  because the claimant may have put the hammer down already ( I assume that the issue date was 8th July ?  )

Most of your defence is written by coupon mad in announcements,  in the defence template thread 

Indeed its ECP, issue date is 8th July 

Gr1pr

You need to get your template defence submitted ASAP,  before dcb legal pull the trigger 

CanineLover

Got it! 

My defence is about the fact that i wasn't the driver at the time but i have provided the driver details by post as requested in the letter they send, magically they didn't received my letter therefore we are here now. I'm reading through Coupon-mad's defence template which starts with this paragraph.

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.

What i would like to know if this template correct one for my defence with obviously editing paragraph 3 or do i need a  specific one ?

Gr1pr

End paragraph 2 eith..... but not the driver 

Paragraph 3 is bespoke and should mention that the defendant named the driver etc, so look for a similar recent paragraph 3, urgently due to being a week over your submission deadline 

Le_Kirk

You need to get your defence in via MCOL because the claimant has been free to press the button for a default judgment since 11 August.  You haven't time for refining (that can be done at WS time) just use the template defence and add what you have said above but turn it into the third person, check it fits into MCOL defence box by saving and, if it does, submit it!

CanineLover

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 hirer of the vehicle at the time.

3.The Defendant was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle, but simply the hirer at the time. When the first letter arrived by post, the Defendant followed the instructions in the letter and provided the Claimant the driver’s details by post. The Defendant believed that this dealt with the matter and did not hear anything further until years later. The Claimant now says they did not receive that letter. In any case, the Defendant cannot be held liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, having already named the driver as required.

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.

How does this look ? Does it need any adjustments ?

Gr1pr

In paragraph 3, as a hirer you have no legal liability under POFA2012 because parking companies never comply with Pofa2012,  usually by failing to include a copy of the hire agreement,  nevermind that you transferred liability