claim from Euro car park , HM court claiming £170

Giggs

On 31.07.2024, the defendant  vehicle was issued a Parking Charge Notice for the reason of “No Valid Pay and Display/permit was purchased."

In accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1991, the challenge is  based on the fact that the contravention did not occur for the following reasons:

The invoice should be void under the Protection of Freedoms Act. I defendant received his  first notice to keeper on 8th August 2024, which is 16 days after the allege contravention. According to the Act, the defendant  should have received this notice within 14 days.

 

1.     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

2.     The defendant asserts that the Private parking charge is unjust and should be cancelled. The vehicle in question which was parked in the car park had paid sufficient parking tariffs for the allotted time they were staying for with a valid pay and display permit located on their car. The defendant was unable to enter his registration into the parking terminal as it was not registering the keystrokes when inputted so had to leave that information blank.

 

3.     “Indebted to the Claimant” – The defendant made payment on the day which I have bank statement for proof and Euro car park even acknowledge that a payment received ( Evidence email sent by Euro car park).

What are the reason for the £170 as damages. Where the claimant has clearly acknowledged receipt of the £2.00 parking fees.

Extract from Euro Car park email :

"There are no transactions for the vehicle registration mark, which suggests there was a 'major keying error' when purchasing a pay-and-display ticket/mobile payment session." • This statement is supported by a screenshot of my transaction.

 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))'.

 

 

“

 

Giggs

Hi 
Can you please please have a quick look for me . I wanted to submit my defence today. Many thanks 

Castle

Giggs said:

Hi 
Can you please please have a quick look for me . I wanted to submit my defence today. Many thanks 

Once you have done your AOS, your deadline is 30th September.

Gr1pr

Start again and draft your paragraph 3 and new paragraph 4 based on the following examples 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6626291/help-received-dcb-legal-claim-missed-defense-deadline/p1

Your completed draft defence will be 11 paragraphs 

Most of the extra stuff you added in is irrelevant 

Giggs

           

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any terms and conditions. Further, it is denied that this Claimant, who is understood to have a bare licence as an agent, has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability,' which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

1. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant has set out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3, and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action." The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s), and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle on the date in question.
2. 2 On 31.07.2024, The defendant vehicle was issued a Parking Charge Notice for the reason of “No Valid Pay and Display/permit was purchased." The Defendant paid for parking but the machine would not accept the registration number, hence mistakenly entered the incorrect vehicle registration number or did not enter it in full on the ticket machine. The Defendant has always acted in good faith, believing that the parking fees had been duly paid.

In accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1991, the challenge is based on the fact that the contravention did not occur for the following reasons:

The defendant paid the parking fees as agreed when I entered the parking area. Evidence and proof of payment sent to Euro car Park as proof of payment.

The machine was not accepting his registration number for some reason. Despite this, the machine still issued the defendant a ticket. Hence it is not his fault that the machine still issues him with a ticket which the defendant clearly displayed on his windscreen.

 

 

Upon entering the parking zone, the defendant entered a contract with Euro Car Parks. Since Euro Car Parks accepted his payment and issued him a ticket, a contract was clearly formed.

1. From Euro car park email  dated 20th August, Euro Car Parks has stated:

• "There are no transactions for the vehicle registration mark, which suggests there was a 'major keying error' when purchasing a pay-and-display ticket/mobile payment session." • This statement is supported by a screenshot of my transaction.

However, Euro car Park has provided a screen shot of the money received. However, when the defendant has sent the proof of payment. Euro car park could have easily allocate the money to his car.

Euro Car Parks received the payment, which can easily be matched with his car registration. Furthermore, they already have all the relevant details.

There has been no financial loss to Euro Car Parks, and it is unfair that I am being charged £100.

1.     Indebted to the Claimant” – The defendant made payment on the day which he has a bank statement for proof and Euro car park even acknowledge that a payment received (Evidence email sent by Euro car park).

What is the reason for the £170 as damages. Where the claimant has clearly acknowledged receipt of the £2.00 parking fees.

 

 

1. Upon receiving a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) alleging that the "P&D/permit Purchased," the Defendant immediately contacted Euro Car Parks and provided evidence of payment, but the Claimant insisted that the charge was still due, citing the registration error. The Defendant disputes that this minor, inadvertent error because the machine was not accepting some characters, should not result in the issuing of a PCN, especially when proof of payment exists.
2. The Defendant asserts that the parking fee was paid, and there was no intention to avoid payment. The parking charge notice issued is disproportionate as the defendant could not enter the correct registration number, especially given that the payment was made for the correct time period and location. The Defendant argues that this mistake does not constitute a breach of contract significant enough to justify the penalty imposed.
3. The Claimant’s signage at the car park is inadequate and fails to clearly inform users of the consequences of making such a minor error. The Defendant did not see any prominent signs alerting them that such an error would result in a PCN. As per the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must be clear and prominent, especially if they are to be relied upon in cases where a penalty is sought.

Legal and procedural deficiencies:

1. The Claimant's Particulars of Claim are inadequate and fail to meet the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The Claimant's POC are sparse, incoherent, and provide no clear cause of action. This is in breach of CPR 16.4, which requires that the POC include a concise statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies.
2. The POC fails to state the specific nature of the alleged breach, whether it is related to a failure to pay, an incorrect entry, or overstaying, and it does not specify the legal basis for the Claimant’s claim, whether under contract law, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, or any other legislation. This leaves the Defendant at a disadvantage, as it is unclear what case is being brought against them.
3. The Defendant also contends that the Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'), which is necessary to hold the registered keeper liable. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the conditions of POFA have been met.
4. The Claimant’s signage fails the test of fairness as required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The signs are not prominent, do not clearly state the parking terms, and any purported contract between the Claimant and the driver is therefore void or unenforceable. The Supreme Court in Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 made it clear that signs must be clear and prominent; this is a position reinforced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Distinction from Beavis Case:

1. The facts of this case are entirely distinguishable from those in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In Beavis, the penalty was upheld on the basis that there was a clear and prominent sign which conveyed the parking terms and the penalty charge for overstaying. The circumstances in this case are entirely different as there is no overstay, no failure to pay, and no clear or prominent signage conveying that a minor error in entering a registration number would result in a penalty.
2. The Defendant argues that the parking charge in this case is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Claimant has not suffered any loss since the parking fee was paid, and the incorrect registration entry did not cause any detriment to the Claimant or the landowner. The charge is therefore unenforceable as a penalty.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government:

1. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap). It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.
2. This claim is unfair and inflated, and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. The Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.
3. This is a classic example were adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, or a cause of action, as evidenced by the woefully inadequate POC.
4. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022, which is currently being implemented. This Code was introduced to address the widespread concerns about the behaviour of private parking companies, particularly in relation to unfair charges, inadequate signage, and aggressive debt collection practices. The Defendant submits that this claim is precisely the type of unfair and inflated charge that the new Code of Practice was designed to prevent.

CRA Breaches:

1. The Consumer Rights Act (CRA) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness, whether a party raises it or not. The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith.
2. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.
3. The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to the failure of the Claimant to provide clear and prominent signage, as well as the unfairness of penalizing a because the parking machine was not working properly. The Defendant further submits that the sum sought by the Claimant is disproportionate and punitive, which contravenes the fairness test under the CRA.

Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR:

1. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate. DVLA data is only supplied if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder (ref: KADOE rules). It is not accepted that this Claimant, an agent of a principal, has authority to form contracts at this site in their name. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.
2. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The Defendant contends that a fair ADR process would have likely resolved this matter in their favour, given the evidence provided.
3. The Claimant's reliance on their own appeals service, which is known for rejecting most disputes, does not meet the standards of fairness and independence that would be required for a genuinely effective ADR process.

 

Conclusion:

1. The Defendant believes that the claim is entirely without merit, and the POC is embarrassing in its lack of detail. The Defendant respectfully requests that the court strike out the claim.
2. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks: (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and (b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.
3. The Defendant also requests that the court consider the distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. While CPR 38.6 and 46.5 (costs payable by the claimant) are not applicable in the Small Claims track, it is within the court's discretion to award costs where a Claimant has behaved unreasonably.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Giggs

Hi 
what the maximum  characters i can enter in the money claim, and why i am getting  invalid charaters such as < >

many thanks for your help

Gr1pr

I would not be submitting the above,  nothing like the template defence 

MCOL allows 122 lines only, plus you cannot use certain characters like  "  < and  >

Start again and draft a concise defence based on the template defence by coupon mad and after studying the other recent cases   ( which I did mention previously   )

Coupon-mad

That's the old template defence.

Giggs

Hi Coupon Mad

I am trying to get the  new version , but  unfortunately no chance

Can you please point me to the right  direction please.

Many thanks
G

Gr1pr

Top of this forum , 4 down from the top,  so number 4 out of the 7 announcements,  and above your thread