BW Legal letter after no response to appeal

BeachDudeSW

Coupon-mad said:

You want a claim form. No worries.

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow.  Do I need to get a claim form from somewhere?  I was just going to send the email, as above, and then wait to see if they issue a County Court claim

Gr1pr

You are correct,  but

A county court claim is now a centralised system using MCOL,  so a Money Claim N1SDT pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL may arrive in the post in due course 

The county courts are not involved for the first half, only the 2nd half

Coupon-mad

BeachDudeSW said:

Coupon-mad said:

You want a claim form. No worries.

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow.  Do I need to get a claim form from somewhere? 

No, I mean what they are threatening is what you want, to resolve it once & for all.

BeachDudeSW

So, it's just happened… I received a letter in the post dated 13/05/26 from HM Courts & Tribunals Service with a claim form and the response pack. I've attached the redacted claim form with their Particulars of Claim. Please let me know if I've left too much un-redacted.

I completed the AOS on 22/05/26 and am drafting my defence now, aiming to submit it in the next few days. I have until 15/06/26 (28 days after the date of service) to submit but I'd like to get it done at least a couple of days before this in case of any issues.

I'm pretty much going to use @Coupon-mad 's template defence, but am just wondering if the courts have caught on to it being a template that everyone uses, and thus awarding it less merit?

I don't really have my own 'defence' as such. The driver went in to the car park to drop their child off to a school trip. They were stopped (not parked in a bay - but I think case law states 'parked' is as basic as the vehicle being stationary) whilst the children all got out parents cars and on to the school bus. Total time in/out of the car park was 33 minutes. They didn't even think about the fact that a parking ticket was needed, nor did they notice the ANPR cameras. However, I don't believe any of what I just wrote would be a justifiable 'defence' so probably best not to include any of that.

So my question really is whether the template (edited to take out paragraph 10) would be sufficient?

Thanks again for all your help.

Coupon-mad

I'm pretty much going to use (the) template defence, but am just wondering if the courts have caught on to it being a template that everyone uses, and thus awarding it less merit?

Nope because it is on point. Matters not if it's a template: if it makes sense & addresses the defence points, which it does, it's fine.

Use it all but obviously you MUST RESPOND to the allegation. That's why para 3 is left for you to write (a response to the POC).

You can talk about dropping off passengers (particularly kids who need escorting) NOT BEING PARKING and quote the MHCLG's 'definition of a parking period'. Read it in the Draft statutory Code!

BeachDudeSW

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82028202#Comment_82028202

Thank you very much, that's reassuring. I'll leave most of the template defence in then!

In my custom response to the PoC, I will include about dropping off passengers, but even with the new MHCLG's new draft code, it still seems as though the 33 minutes on site would be classed as parking, so WOULDN'T make a good defence?

From what I understand…

In the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) Draft Statutory Code of Practice, a parking period is defined as the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, which means being left stationary other than in the course of driving. This specific timeframe begins only after any mandatory consideration period and grace period have concluded.

• Start Time: A vehicle is only considered parked once it has come to a stop. The parking period officially begins only after the initial consideration period (the time required to read signs, locate a space, and decide whether to accept the parking terms and conditions) has expired without the driver leaving.
• End Time: The parking period concludes when the driver's permitted parking time expires. At the end of permitted parking, the Code requires a minimum 10-minute grace period before any Notice of Parking Charge can be issued.
• ANPR Systems: The MHCLG Code recognizes that Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems record entry and exit times rather than when the engine was turned off. The guidelines ensure motorists are not penalized simply for the time spent finding a space or reading the terms.

Coupon-mad

No that's a gobbledegook AI version!

I said specifically "quote the MHCLG's 'definition of a parking period".

The definition itself. 😀

Car1980

"Entrance" signage amounts to an almost invisible plate on a building on the right, parallel to the road. Easily hidden as it is so low, as you can see.

Ample opportunity for proper signage. Absolutely nothing at the kiosk you have to drive through that is a defacto entrance.

See the section of entrance signage in the single code of practice.

This also likely breaches the contract with the landowner as trade body compliance is usually a stipulation.

But save all this for the witness statement.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 13/05/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 15/06/26

BeachDudeSW

Thank you all for your help with this. I think I've finished my defence now and would like to ask for your opinions before I submit it in a day or so:

1. With quite a sparse and generic Particulars of Claim, it is quite difficult to respond, but these facts come from my (the Defendant) own knowledge and honest belief.

2. The vehicle is recognised and it is confirmed that I (the Defendant) was the registered keeper.

3. The allegation is vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed. It has been nearly a year since the original Parking Charge was received.  The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult for me, which is highly prejudicial. My knowledge of events, is as set out below.

4. On the 16th July 2025, my daughter was due to start her school-organised Duke of Edinburgh expedition from the village of Porth.  The school had contacted all parents to advise that they will be meeting in the Porth car park and for all students to be dropped there.  The driver of the vehicle turned off from Alexandra Road and on to the small entrance road to the car park.  The driver hadn't been to this car park in many years and the last time they had, the car park had attendants in the entrance booths who took payment on entrance.  These booths were empty on the day of attendance and so the driver presumed that no payment was due.  There was no signage whatsoever indicating that payment was due for parking, from the point of turning off of the public highway, right through to going through the 'entrance' of the booths.  The car park was very busy on the day so the few very small signs around the perimiter of the car park, were not visible.  The driver stayed with my daughter until the school arrived and all students grouped together, the vehicle was then driven out of the car park, again with no 'payment required' signs on the structure driven through when exiting.  At no point during the period on site, did the driver leave the vehicle or turn off the ignition.

5. Images are attached to demonstrate lack of signage.  When the driver attended the site on 16/07/25 there was no signage on approach to the entrance.  Since then, some signage has been added.  001-10-06-26.jpg shows the turn off to the car park, taken on 10/06/26.  002-10-06-26.jpg shows the entrance road towards the 'entrance structure', taken on 10/06/26.  003-06-23.png shows the entrance road towards the 'entrance structure', taken from Google Streetview in June 2023, showing no signage on the entrance structure and one small sign to the right of the road.  This sign had been removed by July 2025.  004-06-23.png shows the 'entrance structure' taken from Google Streetview in June 2023, showing no parking signage.  This is how the structure was in July 2025.  005-10-06-26.jpg shows the entrance road, taken on 10/06/26, showing no signage on the right anymore.  006-10-06-26.jpg shows the entrance structure, taken on 10/06/26, showing new signage regarding a 'camera controlled parking system', which wasn't present in July 2025.  007-10-06-26.jpg shows the view from where the vehicle was stopped, taken on 10/06/26, showing lack of signage other than a parking meter to the right, which wasn't visible on the day due to other vehicles being parked.  008-10-06-26.jpg shows the view from the left side of where the vehicle was stopped, taken on 10/06/26, showing lack of signage.  009-10-06-26.jpg shows the view from the right side of where the vehicle was stopped, taken on 10/06/26, showing lack of signage.  010-10-06-26.jpg shows one of the few signs fixed to a fence at the rear of the site, which were blocked by othere vehicles being parked in front of them, taken on 10/06/26.

6. In the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) draft Private Parking Code of Practice, the 'parking period' is explicitly defined as: 2.24 parking period: the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle)  This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land.  I would argue that in this scenario, the driver wasn't outside of the 'parking period' due to being stopped to enable the passenger to leave the vehicle.  The passenger being a child who needed escorting until the relevant care-takers (the school) were in attendance.

7. I believe that 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, I (the Defendant) avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available from the PoC, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant has never provided the wording of the 'contractual licence' they rely upon in any correspondence. I (the Defendant) reserve 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.

8. The Claimant has improperly added a £60 'contractual recovery cost' to the original Parking Charge. This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

9. 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).

10. To impose a Parking Charge, 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 Parking Charge and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This Parking Charge is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from Beavis.

11. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 Parking Charge covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and

(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 references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 Parking Charge (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

12. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 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))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

And the photos I intend to submit:

Any thoughts would be greatfully appreciated :-)