Minster Baywatch Sital House Loughborough PCN

Castle

You have 33 days from the date of issue and with an issue date of 07/08/2026, that would be 9th September.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 07/08/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 26/08/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 09/09/26

zenith125

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82123339#Comment_82123339

Thanks for confirming, I still want to get it in ASAP 👍🙂

Gr1pr

Actually, the deadline is 4pm on Wednesday 9th September

zenith125

What do you think to this defence?

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed or at all. It is admitted that the Defendant was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question at the material time.
   
2. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has the strict contractual standing and capacity to bring these proceedings in its own name. The prominent signage at Sital House, Loughborough explicitly states that the car park is operated by, and terms are held with, "Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd".
   
3. The Claimant, Minster Baywatch Ltd, is a separate legal entity. The Defendant entered into no contract with the Claimant, nor is there any visible notification on site indicating that contractual rights or the right to initiate legal proceedings have been legally assigned to the Claimant. The Claimant is therefore an uncontracted third party lacking standing, and the claim should be struck out on this basis alone.
   
4. Without prejudice to the above, it is the Defendant’s case that the terms of the parking contract were fully complied with, as the required tariff for the parking duration was successfully paid by the Defendant on the date of the alleged contravention.
   
5. The Defendant used the on-site physical ticket machine provided at the location and paid the correct fee. However, due to a mechanical fault or lack of consumables (such as ticket paper) within the machine, no physical ticket was dispensed.
   
6. The Defendant asserts that the act of payment creates the contract. The failure to dispense a physical token or receipt of that payment is a systemic or mechanical failure entirely within the control of the operator. The Defendant cannot be held liable for an alleged breach of terms where the breach was caused solely by faulty on-site machinery.
   
7. The Claimant's automated enforcement system relies on a digital match between automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) records and paid transaction logs. If the machine failed to log the payment electronically despite accepting funds, the Claimant's data is flawed and unreliable.
   
8. The Defendant demands strict proof from the Claimant, via their unedited machine maintenance logs, audit trails, and cash/digital transaction records for that specific machine on that date, to prove that no such payment was received.
   
9. The Defendant also objects to the addition of arbitrary "debt collection fees" or "contractual costs" added to the initial parking charge. This constitutes an abuse of process and double recovery, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the principles established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
   
10. I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. The Defendant understands 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.

Coupon-mad

No.

Use the template defence. You know where to put your facts section because it explains.

zenith125

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82123764#Comment_82123764

But the template defence doesn't cover the situation like mine, where a ticket was bought but machine didn't dispense and also doesn't cover the different operator situation with Bransby and Minster.

Or do you think that does t matter and the template defence is explicitly better to use?

zenith125

Ok so use the template defence but in paragraph 3 type something alone the lines of the machine not dispensing a ticket?

That still doesn't give opportunity to mention the Bransby / Minster mismatch?

Coupon-mad

You obviously put in both issues.

zenith125

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82123783#Comment_82123783

Not obvious to me, it's all new to me as it is to most people, it's hard to know what is the wrong/right thing to do, but thanks 👍