help with defense CCJ parking charge

latafed

Hi, newbie here, I've never been to court in my life nor have I ever dealt with court papers. I need help with my defense, I have used some parts off the template and would like you to see if it's okay or needs any modifications. 

background: 
I parked at a council estate, all the signage was spray painted nothing was clear to read anything, the lot looked derelict, overgrown bushes over some of the signs, no gate or anything. I appealed the charge they rejected, funny enough their own photograph evidence shows the signs were spray painted, they're also cheeky they provided me with a photo of a clean brand new sign which didn't exist at the time to pretend that was taken on the day. I also have taken my own photographs, some on the day and some even later which shows those signs were like that for months. all spray painted.   

I can't upload pics as I am new to the forum. 
so this is what i am planning to put in the defense box online, let me know if anything is missing. thank you  

1.      The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied

 

2.      At the time of parking the driver could not find any terms of parking restrictions throughout the entire site, there was no indication of it being a paying parking site nor any permits needed to park,   all the signage in place at the location was covered with spray paint, overgrown leafs covered other signage, making it impossible to read or understand the restriction in force , this can be observed in the claimant’s own photographic evidence provided to defendant.  driver had no reasonable way of knowing that any restrictions applied. Defendant has also clear photographic evidence showing the conditions of signage at the time. Given that the signage was non‑compliant and the restriction not adequately communicated.  

 

3.      Claimant provided defendant photographic evidence claiming that signage was clear at the time of the alleged parking charge, one photograph shows a clean signage of terms and conditions of parking, however three photographs show all signage at the site did not show any clear terms and conditions next to the vehicle in question.  This is a deceiving practice by claimant, providing photographic evidence not taken on the day of the alleged charge and proclaiming it to be the terms and conditions of their contract.

 

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.      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.

6.      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'.

7.      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'.

8.      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.

latafed

spelled wrong "leaves" 

Coupon-mad

can't upload pics as I am new to the forum.

Yes you can. Everyone can. That's what the portrait symbol above the reply box is for.

We need to see the Claim Form (redacted).

latafed

here is the claim 

[Image removed by Forum Team]

latafed

signage was like this

[Images removed by Forum Team] 
 he 

Coupon-mad

LOL at that sign!  

What is the Claim form issue date, top right?

Who signed the claim form? Rohan K?

latafed

Coupon-mad said:

What is the Claim form issue date, top right?

Who signed the claim form? Rohan K?

the date is 24th september, i already did the acknowledgement yesterday. 
I can not find who signed the claim, where would that be please?  

Coupon-mad

On the claim form.

latafed

Coupon-mad said:

On the claim form.

found it on the back it's Rohan K 

Le_Kirk

latafed said:

Coupon-mad said:

What is the Claim form issue date, top right?

Who signed the claim form? Rohan K?

the date is 24th september, i already did the acknowledgement yesterday.   

With an issue date of 24/09/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 27/10/25