Help with completing defence statement

Luckynumber10

Le_Kirk said:

With an issue date of 04/09/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 07/10/25

That’s helpful! Thank you! 

Gr1pr

Can't see paragraph 4 in your draft overleaf  !

I assume that paragraphs 2 , 3 and 4 are the only altered paragraphs,  followed by another 7 paragraphs,  so 11 in total ( or 12  )

I am suggesting that you post around 3 numbered paragraphs that contain your alterations and adaptations 

But your final submission will include paragraph 1 plus the rest of the template paragraphs,  renumbered from 1 to 11  ( or 12  )

1505grandad

"But your final submission will include paragraph 1 plus the rest of the template paragraphs,  renumbered from 1 to 11  ( or 12  )"

A heads-up -  the paras should be included unaltered.

"...........of the template but all the rest unchanged besides some tiny details which I didn’t feel were relevant to my case."

Luckynumber10

Thanks all, for ease I have shared my full submission below, paragraphs 1-10 (as I removed paragraph 10 from the original template):

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 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. At all times the Defendant intended to comply with the permitted parking period and leave within the allotted time of 15 minutes as advised by the Cabot Court Hotel in line with their ‘drop off’ policy.

However, the Defendant was physically prevented from leaving the car park due to another vehicle blocking the only available exit route.  This obstruction meant that the Defendant could not lawfully or safely move their vehicle without causing criminal damage to other vehicles or property.  As a result, the time the Defendant’s vehicle remained in the car park was beyond their control.  The Defendant was not voluntarily ‘parking’ but was involuntarily detained due to circumstances outside of their control so Frustration of Contract.

The Claimant’s own evidence photograph actually supports the Defendant’s position; the Defendant can be seen seated in their vehicle, with their seat belt securely fastened, with the headlights visible proving the vehicle’s ignition was on and the Defendant was in the process of leaving the area.  The obstruction caused by the vehicle blocking the exit route is also visible from the same image.

4. The signage relied upon by the Claimant does not make provision for situations where a driver is unable to leave through no fault of their own. Any attempt to penalise a motorist for being ‘trapped’ amounts to an unfair term under Consumer Rights Act 2015.  A contract cannot be enforced where compliance was made impossible by circumstances outside of the Defendant’s control.

For the reasons above, the Defendant submits that no liability arises and respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 inParkingEye 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'.

9. 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'.

10. 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.

James_Poisson

Sorry this could be me, but two points:

1 The POC says nothing about breaking a 15 minute  drop off rule, it states "Registered Users Only" in which case this is about trespass as your were not a registered user, so there was no contract in play.

2 The POC references The Royal Grosvenor Hotel, all your defence is about The Cabot Court Hotel.

Gr1pr

James_Poisson said:

Sorry this could be me, but two points:

1 The POC says nothing about breaking a 15 minute  drop off rule, it states "Registered Users Only" in which case this is about trespass as your were not a registered user, so there was no contract in play.

2 The POC references The Royal Grosvenor Hotel, all your defence is about The Cabot Court Hotel.

Excellent feedback on 2 key points,  I agree 

Luckynumber10

James_Poisson said:

Sorry this could be me, but two points:

1 The POC says nothing about breaking a 15 minute  drop off rule, it states "Registered Users Only" in which case this is about trespass as your were not a registered user, so there was no contract in play.

2 The POC references The Royal Grosvenor Hotel, all your defence is about The Cabot Court Hotel.

Yes, so slightly confusing but we stayed at the Cabot Court Hotel which has no car park, the check in desk and hotel rooms are on land outside the reception of the Royal Grosvenor. When we arrived at the Cabot court hotel they advised we have 15 mins in which to drop luggage off and vacate from the premises. I will change that part regarding the Cabot court and refer to the area as the Royal Grosvenor.  

Luckynumber10

Luckynumber10 said:

James_Poisson said:

Sorry this could be me, but two points:

1 The POC says nothing about breaking a 15 minute  drop off rule, it states "Registered Users Only" in which case this is about trespass as your were not a registered user, so there was no contract in play.

2 The POC references The Royal Grosvenor Hotel, all your defence is about The Cabot Court Hotel.

Yes, so slightly confusing but we stayed at the Cabot Court Hotel which has no car park, the check in desk and hotel rooms are on land outside the reception of the Royal Grosvenor. When we arrived at the Cabot court hotel they advised we have 15 mins in which to drop luggage off and vacate from the premises. I will change that part regarding the Cabot court and refer to the area as the Royal Grosvenor.  

Sorry to sound clueless, but would that mean that the points in my defence are irrelevant given that the alleged offence is “registered users only”

Gr1pr

Not necessarily,  but your defence should definitely address the allegations in the POC, meaning that background information might be better off in your future Witness Statement 

Luckynumber10

Gr1pr said:

Not necessarily,  but your defence should definitely address the allegations in the POC, meaning that background information might be better off in your future Witness Statement 

Ok, thank you! My head is spinning with it all today. Thanks for your advice. I have re-look at this next week with fresh eyes and re-word paragraph 3 accordingly