Defense Claim for a Contractual Breach on Private Land

UserD

Hi Forumite's,

Any feedback on my first draft?

Le_Kirk

@1505grandad pointed out (he beat me to it) that as the breach was properly pleaded in the POC, you cannot use Chan & Akande.  Rewrite it and just show us your paragraph #3.  The POC states you were parked in a restricted area, so that is what you have to defend against.

UserD

@1505grandad and  @Le_Kirk- Thank you for your response .I only have a few days to get this correct as deadline is on the 27/10 4pm.

I am not really sure what to use as an defence as i did not know about this ticket until i got the claim letter so i have put this together for paragraph 3 after some more research stating : 
1. No letter to keeper notice and no debit collection letters.
2. Been back to the property in question and the signage is not legit and not present.

Please advise further:

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 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, the defendant did not receive any notice to keeper and no debt collection mail and this is possibly because the defendant moved house in 07/2024 and the claim states that the contractual breach was on the 22/08/2024, which means the claim is not POFA compliant as in the point 2 above.

To add , I have been back to the property in question and there is no proper signage on entrance and other signage and hence confirms the lack of signage performance as in Link Parking v Mr L C9GF5875 [2016] it was found that there was no entrance signage at a residential site and the other signage was not visible. Hence as there was no proper signage. So as there was no signage, there was no lease or contract to consider which makes this claim null and void. As the signage does not comply with information requirements laid down in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014. This Act came in force after the Beavis case and as yet there is no case law available. However clause 13(1) of the act states that a contract is not binding on a consumer if the correct information is not provided.

Le_Kirk

It is the POC that you have to answer "parked in a restricted area".
Your answer could be, only if true: -
It was not restricted
It might have been restricted but the signs did not indicate such
You have a permit to park there
etc
Not sure that failure to receive NTK or debt collection letters is a valid defence point as that happened (well didn't' happen) after the parking event and couldn't/didn't affect it.

UserD

@Le_Kirk

ok , i will not add the first paragraph in thank you , but did mention signage in the second paragraph .Is this not sufficient?

To add , I have been back to the property in question and there is no proper signage on entrance and other signage anyway and hence confirms the lack of signage performance as in Link Parking v Mr L C9GF5875 [2016],it was found that there was no entrance signage at a residential site and the other signage was not visible. Hence as there was no proper signage. So as there was no signage, there was no lease or contract to consider which makes this claim null and void. As the signage does not comply with information requirements laid down in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014. This Act came in force after the Beavis case and as yet there is no case law available. However clause 13(1) of the act states that a contract is not binding on a consumer if the correct information is not provided.

UserD

This is the only signage i could find.

UserD

HI Forumite's

Any further advise?

The bays were not marked as to which are restricted and not restricted and has poor signage??

Car1980

Yes, ditch Chan and the claim makes no mention of POFA, so that can go. The dodgy sign can wait for the witness statement.

Requires a bit more jigging than usual, so try this:

1. The Defendant, who is also the registered keeper, parked their vehicle in the car park of a development of flats in order to visit a resident. 

2. The Claimant states the vehicle was parked in a "restricted area", with no indication of what that may mean or how such areas are marked. The resident instructed the Defendant where to park, strongly suggesting the car was not parked in any kind of restricted place.

3. 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'. No notices, from the claimant exists on the land, therefore there was no contract and it follows that there could be no breach. The Claimant has never provided the wording of the contract they rely upon in any correspondence and 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', non-existent 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 Late Payments of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 allows statutory compensation for each late invoice (£40 - £100 depending on the amount of the invoice) for business to business invoices only. If businesses were intended to be alllowed to add sums to invoices to individuals a) there would be legislation allowing such, and b) the legislation that exists wouldn't specifically exclude business to individual invoices. Trying to insert additional contractual sums would seem to be an attempt to circumvent a) the only limited costs the small claims track is intended to offer, and; b) the intentions of law makers who specifically saw fit to legislate that late payments are the domain of Business to Business.

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. 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))'.

UserD

@Car1980

This is really great , thank you and appreciate your advise and assistance.

I think i can submit this now and what are the next steps , i remember defending the first claim emailing it in but will check the newbies sections again for what's the correct steps as it needs to be submitted by tomorrow 4pm and has been a while.

UserD

Fist of 8 steps completed : Defence submitted

THE FIRST 8 STEPS:

1. Use MCOL to put in your Defence.  Do not forget to hit 'SUBMIT' then check the Claim History, to see that the defence is safely registered.