Parkhouse Court Hatfield- Another Claim .. oh the joys

90Ninety

Firstly I want to thank the creators and contributors to this forum, Keith P and Coupon Mad were particularly helpful in the past .  Its amazing this thread exists and continues to be a cornerstone for fighting unfair parking charges

I'm Back here probably due to lack absentmindedness and lack of imagination. Back in March I inadvertently got distracted and had forgot to get a pay and display parking ticket, while stopping for a coffee and a bite at  Weatherspoon in the Parkhouse Court, Hatfield AL10 9QZ. In that particular carpark the parking is free for 60 minutes providing the number plate is entered and the printed ticket is displayed in car (I don't think there is ANPR), I must of parked here 30-40 times in the past .  in this instance I must of been there just 30-45 minutes and came back to a lovely £60 Windscreen invoice from UKPC. 
Also worth noting is that this carpark is next to a shopping complex but also shared with the residents, though I was not are if the spaces are dedicated to residents. 
Being a student at the time with limited work paying for this would have been a struggle probably . Having not being able to pay this amount, firstly I did try complaining to Wetherspoons however they say the land is owned by the parking company and out of their hands (allegedly even their own staff receive tickets)
 Out of principle of being an unfair amount of money and  generally the shadiness of these so called 'parking management' firms , I decided to wait until a time where I may receive a claim letter, then consider defending. (a daily rate or £20 would seem reasonable in my opinion)

I have been through this process before and had effectively succeeded not having to pay, (due to the claimant not submitting within timeframe). So I am considering again to write up a defense . While I think its technically possible,  I lack the writing acumen to do this convincingly  myself. Also while this is technically my own fault, its still unfair, as I would happily of paid for the hour had I been reminded to pay, could this be an argument on its own ( I feel like there should be a sign saying " Remember to pay before leaving " or generally more memorable signage)

In hindsight should I have just paid the £60 ?   In any case now the claim is £262.72 . Attached are the original PCN and Claim letter 
In a nutshell I am looking for whether this is defendable, and if so get direction on how to defend it, which particular reasons should I consider using in the defense .   

Coupon-mad

Easy peasy. They'll discontinue in the end, regardless of facts of the case because that's DCB Legal's MO. Use the Template Defence which changed in July (we now use MCOL).

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 14/10/25 and providing you complete the AoS after 19/10/25 and before 02/11/25

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 17/11/25

90Ninety

Thanks . AOS submitted!  For posterity here is my draft defense, para 3 .  I used Ai ( perplexity Ai - pro version ) to help elaborate some key particulars .   

The Defendant has little recollection of seeing any clear, prominent, or well-positioned signage at the location explaining the requirement for resident permit parking, or any obligation to display a valid permit. At the time of parking, there were no obvious signs or road markings visible, nor any entry signage sufficiently informing motorists of the operative restrictions—contrary to both government guidance and local authority standards that resident parking bays must be marked with clear, legible signs at entry and within the parking area. There was a reasonable expectation that the car park provided a free parking period for grocery store customers, as no additional resident-only restrictions or penalties were indicated or made obvious to the Defendant prior to leaving the vehicle.​
Furthermore, the parking charge notice was issued immediately, without any reasonable grace period provided, meaning the Defendant was denied even minimal time to seek clarification, obtain a permit or ticket (if necessary), or to return to the vehicle—especially as urgent use of local facilities was required at the material time. This lack of flexibility or proportionality further illustrates an unreasonable enforcement practice that fails the requirement for fair dealing with consumers.
The absence of explicit, well-placed, and comprehensible signage or road markings renders any purported contract with the Claimant invalid, as the supposed terms were not transparent, prominent, or fairly communicated, in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Private Parking Code of Practice. The Defendant asserts that no liability for the claimed charge can arise, since the fundamental elements of a legally binding agreement—offer, acceptance, and consideration—were absent, and the imposition of the charge is unfair and disproportionate under all the circumstances

Coupon-mad

Too wordy and AI is always appalling IMHO. You can spot at 40 paces that was written by a bot! It's the totally unnatural overuse of long words and repetition.

90Ninety

I thought the Ai done a better job of articulating a worthy defence . Anyhow here is my 'average layman's take on paragraph 3 (basically what I wanted the Ai to improve upon) 

3. The Defendant didn’t notice any clear or obvious signs about needing a resident permit. There were no clearly visible markings or warning signs for residential spaces, which breaks official parking rules. The Defendant only observed that parking was free for store customers, since there were no obvious signs saying otherwise. The parking charge ticket was issued immediately, with very little time to obtain proper permit, especially as the Defendant urgently needed nearby facilities. This enforcement was unreasonable and unfair.

Without clear signage, markings or reasonable deterrent there is no valid contract breach. The Defendant believes the charge is unfair, and that no agreement or liability exists. 

Considering the case defence is due in a few days and that PE's track record on dropping claims, I suspect it will be enough ?

Coupon-mad

No, the first AI version was truly awful!

This is a bit better but I'd remove "which breaks official parking rules" because there aren't any. And remove this because I doubt there was an immediate windscreen PCN?

"The parking charge ticket was issued immediately, with very little time to obtain proper permit,"

Why aren't you just using the usual generic para 3 seen on all the other claim threads? There was no need to draft anything new.

90Ninety

Coupon-mad said:

Why aren't you just using the usual generic para 3 seen on all the other claim threads? There was no need to draft anything new.

Because I thought (maybe mistakenly?) the POC breaches were stipulated and was just following the guidance on the template defence thread, as below

Coupon-mad said:

Paragraph 3 is yours to write!

Please DO NOT say "I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO PUT" (you do, see below) but by all means post your draft para 3 for feedback on your own thread:

3.  EITHER:

IF THE POC FAIL TO STATE THE BREACH (e.g. Civil Enforcement Ltd, Gladstones & Moorside cases currently all fail to specify an allegation) BRIEFLY REFER TO CEL v CHAN & CPMS v AKANDE. SEE LINK BELOW

So reading between the lines, I guess the POC are not sufficient and therefore I can just re-use paragraph four from an earlier claim that I had, where also the POC was not enough .. 

Here is para 3 from a claim a year ago  ( the rest of the defence is a bit different from the newer template)

A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

CEL vs Chan Transcripts image 1 

CEL vs Chan Transcripts image 2 

CEL vs Chan Transcripts image 3

CEL vs Chan Transcripts image 4

Thanks in advance with this, apologies if I am slow to understand guidance, its appreciated none the less!

Gr1pr

Nope, you cannot use the Chan and Akande defence because the alleged breach is pleaded in the POC 

Coupon-mad

I just meant copy a generic one that lots people use that starts 'regarding the POC.

90Ninety

Ok I just took the liberty of taking the below from this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6624816/euro-car-parks-dcb-legal-pcn-defence-assistance-required-please/p1
3. " Referring to the POC: POC 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations."