County Court Claim Defence: Premier Park / BW Legal

Shining1959

Hello

I've read the guidance and template defence set out on this thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-with-added-admin-dra-costs-edited-in-2025 

I would be grateful if someone could read over my amended draft defence pasted below. I have only included amended paragraphs 2 & 3 as requested.

Brief circumstances are the parking charge was issued in June 2024 and relates to a retail car park with the alleged breach being non-payment. I recall receiving a separate parking charge around the same time (end of May 2024) and thought I had successfully appealed both at the POPLA stage. However checking through my emails, I can only find the appeal success email quoting the reference to the May 2024 charge. The appeal was made and accepted on the grounds that Premier Park had not complied with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 regarding keeper liability.

I am unsure if I need to weave in any case law in my defence or whether the fact the original notice was non-POFA compliant is enough?

Draft defence:

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. There has been a significant passage of time since the alleged contractual breach and the initiation of proceedings by the Claimant. This 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.

3.1 Only Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 can cause the registered keeper to be deemed to be the liable party. The Defendant submits the Claimant failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012;

- namely, but not limited to failing to state that the Claimant, does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service as prescribed by section 9(2)(e);

- namely, but not limited to failing to give notice of keeper liability as prescribed by section 9(2)(f) of the Act. 

The Claimant can not, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to the Defendant, the keeper. There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and the Defendant can not do so.

3.2 The Defendant believed that this parking charge matter had previously been concluded, following a successful appeal to the Independent Appeals Service, POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals). The Defendant believed they appealed both this parking charge and another issued by the Claimant for the same alleged breach.

The Claimant rejected the initial appeal with an inadequate response, following which the Defendant escalated the matter to POPLA. The appeal was made on the basis that the Claimant had failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (as detailed above).

The Defendant subsequently received confirmation via email that the appeal had been upheld and that the parking charge had been cancelled. The Defendant believed this email applied to both parking matters. 

I need to submit today so would be grateful for any urgent guidance.

Thanks

Gr1pr

I would suggest that it's close 

Personally,  I would email a SAR to popla and request both appeal outcomes,  giving dates and references etc, belt and braces

Popla dont send one outcome for 2 appeals, each one is separate , 10 appeals give 10 outcomes, 2 appeals gives 2 outcomes 

Coupon-mad

If that (within the Template Defence) doesn't fit in the 'Start Defence' box on MCOL just remove para 10, which won't matter.

Make sure you don't just save it. Submit it!

Shining1959

Gr1pr said:

I would suggest that it's close 

Personally,  I would email a SAR to popla and request both appeal outcomes,  giving dates and references etc, belt and braces

Popla dont send one outcome for 2 appeals, each one is separate , 10 appeals give 10 outcomes, 2 appeals gives 2 outcomes 

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not familiar with how quick/slow these things move but given the one month timescale allowed to complete a SAR, it is possible I may not receive confirmation from POPLA before things progress.

This could've been an oversight on my part in that I didn't appeal to POPLA for the second parking charge that is the subject of this claim. However I am confident that the content and structure of Premier Park's parking charge notice was the same in both instances (issued less than 2 weeks apart) and so they were not compliant with POFA on both occasions. On that basis, is it fair to conclude that it's immaterial whether I appealed to POPLA or not?

Shining1959

Coupon-mad said:

If that (within the Template Defence) doesn't fit in the 'Start Defence' box on MCOL just remove para 10, which won't matter.

Make sure you don't just save it. Submit it!

It all fit within the allowed line allowance Submitted earlier so awaiting next steps. 

One thing I wasn't able to see from discussions is the likelihood of cases similar to mine being withdrawn by the Claimant and/or their rep at this stage. I'm just trying to anticipate whether this will progress to hearing stage or the fact my Defence alleges no keeper liability is enough to make the Claimant stop. Please advise

Coupon-mad

BW Legal don't tend to discontinue. Expect a final hearing in six months' time. They won't be fazed by a POFA non-compliance allegation.

Do get the winning similar case evidence pack from POPLA because will help the judge see the wording issue. However, you could easily be asked by the judge or rep at the hearing if you were driving. That can happen.

While your case is quiet, please spend time on the government's Public Consultation, if you haven't done it yet. I've added some pointers to the thread below to help support answers to the questions.

The MHCLG's proposals are wrong. We must stop them:

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!

Whilst your answers must of course be your own, there are vital points to safeguard motorists interests to make, that many people may not think of without our guidance because we see cases every day and we know the legal background. There won't be a template - the survey is for you to reply in your words - but we'll help everyone with what to focus on.

Shining1959

Noted. Will review the Consultation you shared in closer detail and respond.

Shining1959

Hello 

I need some further assistance with my case please. There are two issues:

1) MCOL shows updates of "Defence was rejected" and "Defence was struck out on 08/01/2026; and
2) I have NOT received any updates regarding claim progression by post or email.

1) DEFENCE STATUS:

I logged onto MCOL on my own intuition and was surprised (and now worried) to see the update regarding my defence being rejected and subsequently struck out. These are the last entries in the transaction list, both dated 08/01/2026, and I can't see any reference to judgment being entered. As noted in my initial thread post, I have followed the guidance issued about how to construct my defence. 

• Can anyone advise why I may have received this outcome to my defence and what this means for the claim? 

• What are the next steps?

2) NO UPDATES REGARDING CLAIM PROGRESSION:

When I first registered to MCOL to acknowledge the claim in July 2025, I noticed the correspondent address was incorrect. It was pre-filled and did not give me the option to update. So I emailed MCOL at MCOLITassistance@justice.gov.uk requesting my address is updated and received email confirmation that this had been completed. 

In early December 2025, I logged onto MCOL as I was conscious I had not received any further updates or correspondence for some time (though I'm aware these cases can take a while to progress). I was concerned to see further actions had taken place without my knowledge, specifically:

• DQ sent to me on 19/09/2025

• General sanctions order made on 13/11/2025

I did not receive any communication regarding either of these documents. I immediately called MCOL a few times but was unable to speak to anyone, so resorted back to email (same address as above). I queried where these documents were sent and requested copies were sent to me either by email or at my correct address (which I repeated).

I received a reply stating the email address I contacted was for technical queries only and redirected me to CaseProgression.CNBC@justice.gov.uk
I forwarded my query to this email but have not received any response.

I am very concerned that I am not being updated appropriately with this claim, and that I am not being given a fair opportunity to defend or represent my position. Are the courts not obligated to provide both sides with updates? I have only learnt what is happening with this claim by logging onto MCOL myself intermittently. I intend to make further contact to raise this issue but would be grateful if anyone has any advice for how to navigate this and also where to direct my contact considering my last email has gone unanswered?

Coupon-mad

OK you need to urgently refile your defence & a completed N180 DQ (download & complete one electronically, do NOT fill in a printed copy by hand and certainly don't scan it). Make sure it has your new postal address of course.

Send these - PLUS PROOF THAT YOU TOLD THEM YOU HAD MOVED - to Case Progression, with a heading:

FORMAL COMPLAINT: Incorrect address used for defendant. Improper judgment re claim no. xxxxxxxx.

Then also email (separately) the complaints email for HMCTS to ask them to step in to ensure that the CNBC reinstate the defence and update their records to the correct address for the defendant, which the CNBC already held because they were told about the new address in week/month/year.

This is a clear CNBC oversight: a clear failure to rectify address data in a timely manner, and using old (inaccurate) address data after being told the defendant's address had changed. This is a breach of the Data Protection Principles by the CNBC and as such, must be treated as a formal complaint. No application or fee is needed under these circumstances.

Shining1959

Many thanks for your reply @Coupon-mad
Confirming I have:

• Completed the N180 electronically and emailed this to Case Progression at CaseProgression.cnbc@justice.gov.uk, and for completeness also emailed it to the DQ inbox at  DQ.CNBC@justice.gov.uk as this is where the form should have gone in any event. I received the standard auto responses from both addresses.

• Raised a formal complaint via the HMCTS online complaints form (https://hmcts-complaint-form-eng.form.service.justice.gov.uk/). I could not locate a single complaints email address for the court service, hence why I reported via the online form. I received an auto acknowledgment of my complaint, including a complaint reference number.

In the interim, how do I proceed regarding the defence being rejected and subsequently struck out? I am assuming (as I have no other indication) that the judge who reviewed was unhappy with its content and does not consider it reasonable grounds to defend? Grateful if anyone could share other possible reasons why the defence may have received this reaction? For clarity, the contents of my defence is within my first post on this thread.

Finally, but for this procedural irregularity regarding my correspondence address, I would have served my DQ to BW Legal, as the legal representatives for Premier Park. Should I still do this? I have had no contact with them prior.

Coupon-mad

You seem to have missed out the complaint to the CNBC?

They will reject your N180. Sending this had to be done alongside a formal complaint (using the words I said) to force it to be resurrected.

The HMCTS complaint was only secondary, to put a bomb under the CNBC to recognise & urgently deal with the formal complaint you first made to the CNBC.