Parking Ticket - Court Letter Received

PC_MANC

I am being pursued for parking despite having paid for parking on the day in question.

On 02/08/21, I attempted to purchase a parking ticket while on holiday with my family, including young children. The car park was extremely busy, with long queues at the payment machines. I successfully purchased a ticket; however, the machine did not allow me to enter my full vehicle registration number. As a result, the printed ticket displayed only a partial registration.

I made efforts to locate a parking warden or any on-site staff to report the issue, but there was no one available at the time.

Subsequently, I received a parking fine through the post around the end of November 2021. I contacted the parking company to explain the situation and provide evidence of payment and offered to pay £40.00 to cover any admin costs. Unfortunately, I was informed that the debt had been sold to a third-party collection agency and that I would need to deal with them directly. I responded to clarify that I had not entered into any agreement with the new agency and wished to resolve the matter with the original company. Despite this, they refused to assist further.

I’ve received a court letter from the Civil National Business Centre. I contacted them directly by phone, and they confirmed that the letter is genuine. Any advice would be appreciated. I can pay the fine; however, I did purchase a ticket. I don't want to receive a CCJ.

Gr1pr

Definitely not a fine,  never was, just an invoice 

Redact the claim form as seen in the following thread,  but leaving the Issue date showing on the top right

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81605188#Comment_81605188

Post a redacted picture of yours 

PC_MANC

See the redacted claim form.

Gr1pr

So one pcn issued by Smart Parking,  claim issue date is 18th August,  so complete the AOS online on MCOL next week 

Meanwhile,  use the defence template in announcements and adapt the paragraph 3 as shown in the following thread,  changing the details to suit your case

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6624953/n1sdt-received/p1

By the way, the debt was definitely not sold, they are not allowed to be sold, but it was sub contracted to powerless debt collectors 

PC_MANC

Thank you for your support. I'll follow the instructions and come back if I get stuck. 

PC_MANC

I'm struggling to write my defence. I found a thread with 10 paragraphs however, at the bottom of other posts, it says it's been rewritten to 10 paragraphs. I can't find this!

Is this correct? Sorry, I'm new to this.

Defence

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.

3. The Defendant has little recollection of events, considering this was more than a year ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

3. With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim

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 did email Smart Parking at the beginning stating I had paid for a ticket however the machine didn't print off my full registration. Does this need adding to paragraph 3?

PC_MANC

I'm unsure how to edit the post. It should start with.... I found a thread with 10 paragraphs however, at the bottom of other posts, it says it's been rewritten to 8 paragraphs. I can't find this!

Gr1pr

You cannot edit posts etc until your status changes from newbie to forumite 

The defence template is in the announcement of the same name at the top of the forum,  but the number of paragraphs can vary depending on the claimant and the POC, but is typically around 10 to 12 paragraphs since the middle of last month 

Your draft above is incorrect because the poc plead the alleged breach , insufficient paid time 

Look at the other recent Smart Parking defences,  especially their paragraph 3, and adapt it

I already linked it earlier,  but you have ignored that advice 

PC_MANC

I appreciate the support, I do. I have tried looking through many threads and I've found information and added. I'm a newbie to all this, including the forum and I'm struggling. I've tried to write something myself to replace paragraph 3.

Would this be okay?

3. Response to Particulars of Claim

Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that any debt is owed to the Claimant.

Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 02/08/2021, as alleged. Payment was made for parking on the date in question, and the Defendant retains proof of this.

Paragraph 3 is denied. While the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle, it was used by multiple drivers at the time. The Claimant has provided no evidence to establish that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant does not keep records of vehicle use and, due to the time elapsed, cannot recall who was driving on that specific date.

Paragraph 4 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that keeper liability applies. The Claimant has not clearly demonstrated compliance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), particularly in relation to the issuance and content of any Notice to Keeper. The Defendant respectfully submits that, unless full compliance with POFA can be evidenced, keeper liability does not apply. The Defendant reserves the right to challenge the validity of the notice and the basis of the claim should further documentation be provided. The Defendant notes that pursuing a claim without clear legal basis may be considered unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g), and invites the Court to consider this when assessing the merits of the case.

The Claimant appears to be pursuing this matter based solely on a technicality, despite the fact that payment was made and no financial loss was suffered. This approach is disproportionate and contrary to the principles of fairness and reasonableness expected in consumer contracts.

The Defendant refers to Excel Parking v Ms C [C8DP36F0], heard at Stockport County Court, where the judge dismissed the claim after finding that a fault on the ticket machine caused the ticket to be incorrectly printed. Costs were awarded to the Defendant. The circumstances in this case are comparable, as the ticket issued did not display the full vehicle registration due to limitations with the payment machine interface.

3.1 The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of the posted terms and conditions.

3.2 The amount claimed is excessive and unjustified. The Defendant notes that no private parking charge can reasonably amount to £170 without clear justification, and believes no damages were incurred by the Claimant.

Castle

PC_MANC said:

The Defendant refers to Excel Parking v Ms C [C8DP36F0], heard at Stockport County Court, where the judge dismissed the claim after finding that a fault on the ticket machine caused the ticket to be incorrectly printed. Costs were awarded to the Defendant. The circumstances in this case are comparable, as the ticket issued did not display the full vehicle registration due to limitations with the payment machine interface.

No need for this as the claim only refers to "insufficient paid time" , there's no mention of wrong VRM details in the claim.

Coupon-mad

You'd find it a lot easier just to look down the thread titles and find three or four Smart Parking Defences from this past week and copy one!  It is that easy.

You've completely missed the usual point about the untruth in the POC.