Urgent Assistance Required – UK Parking Control Ltd Claim

justaregular_bloke

@Umkomaas could you kindly help with the defence link, i have searched but cant find it. also is there a step by step guide for what to do from here?, i have read about SAR etc, i am not sure what applies at what stage. Thank you for the great work you are doing here.

justaregular_bloke

@Umkomaas, i have been looking for the defence template but cant seem to find it. Could you kindly help me with the link. Also as i am new to this, is there a step by step guide somewhere that i can follow from where i am now. i read in some threads that they sent a SAR, is that sill relevant in my case?  if i could get a link o this too, i will be grateful.  Thanks to you and @Gr1pr and everyone for the great work you are doing here.

Gr1pr

Top of this forum, above this thread,  3rd thread from the top, one of 7 announcements 

( we dont link announcements,  but it's near where you started your thread with the new thread button   )

The defendant could email a SAR, but we dont recommend doing so,  stick to what we tell you needs doing

Read the coupon mad post signature,  it signposts you to the announcements 

Coupon-mad

We won't link an Announcement thread.

However you seem to have missed my signature under every post I make:

Umkomaas

justaregular_bloke said:

Umkomaas said:

A UKPC and DCB Legal combo is likely to only result in one outcome (provided yo follow forum advice!) .... a discontinuance. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1 

I have also now received a “Warning Notice of Transfer to Solicitors” from GCTT dated 07/10/2025

Curious as to the GCTT involvement (don't worry, they're harmless). Can you just double-check they are chasing the same parking event. How come they are pursuing you, as opposed to your wife?

You are right @Umkomaas. I have looked and found its a different one. I didnt receive any communication about this one before now. not a PCN or any notice. 

Are we talking about two separate vehicles?  If so, you need to check (not assume!) the V5C (logbook) address is up to date with your current one. 

Others have commented on where to find the Template Defence Announcement - titled, 'Template Defence' (top of the forum thread list). 

justaregular_bloke

thank you so much people! i have now submited the AOS through MCOL.  

i will now draft my defence using the template and share for your comments. 

justaregular_bloke

@Umkomaas, @Coupon-mad, @Gr1pr  Here is my Defense.

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 Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 14/04/2025, as alleged. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable
and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. Thequantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

3.1 Driver did not park at the said location but drove through so there was no parking. 60 by 80cm small print signage was not visible in the said dark night, The sign was held gingerly to a camera pole and moves in different directions to the wind making only the blank side visible to any one entering the location. Defendant has visited the location in the day and found that there is no other sign in the property until you drive back to the gate. Sign at the gate is even less visible on a smaller signage. Having not seen these signs, the defendant has not entered into any agreement with the claimant

4. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps mock-up).

5. In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of the charge itself. None of these requirements have been demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to £135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

6. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents (DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the
added sums are not part of the parking related charges: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits reported 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'. public consultation =
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

7. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 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)).’ Schedule4= https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4

8. The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest (the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be disallowed).

9. The delay in litigation has made retrieving material documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

10. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1):'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))'.

What do you think about my paragraph 3?.

1505grandad

"i will now draft my defence using the template and share for your comments."

The Defence will be in your wife's name?

Just checking  -  are you using the Template for your wife's Defence  -  the 1st para does not appear to be exactly as stated in the following (scroll down to post 2):-

 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-with-added-admin-dra-costs-edited-in-2025/p1

Gr1pr

Paragraph 2 doesn't match up with the template defence Paragraph 2 either