Sryggling with wording Section 3

Canvasdesign

Struggling how to word a response in to the template for section 3.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.

E S Parking Enforcement Ltd

Parked at Holmes Mill Clitheroe Lancashire

[Images redacted for personal information by Forum Team]

Canvasdesign

The driver of motor vehicle registration
(the Vehicle) parked in breach of the prominently displayed terms and conditions of parking set out on the signage at HOLMES MILL CLITHEROE on 21/06/2025. The signage constituted an offer of a unilateral contract, accepted by the act of parking, under which the driver agreed to pay the specified parking charge (the PCN) in the event of breach. The PCN remains unpaid after 28 days and the Defendant, as driver and/or registered keeper, is liable for the outstanding sum. Despite demands, the Defendant has failed to make payment.
The Claimant therefore claims £100 for the
PCN, £70.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £3.62
pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% per annum, accruing at £0.04 per day until judgment or earlier payment.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 01/11/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 06/11/25 and before 20/11/25 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 04/12/25

I have reported your first post as it contained enough information for anybody who does not have your interests at heart to submit a bad/poor/rude defence.
When that image is taken down, post it again REDACTED and then study the defence template and note that you can use Chan & Akande due to there being no breach pleaded

Canvasdesign

I have edited the images sorry. I have the template but I am just struggling what to write in section 3 in response to the POC

Any help would be massively appreciated

Canvasdesign

The Defendant was the driver on the material date and entered the Tesco car park with the genuine intention of shopping there. As the vehicle was being parked, it unexpectedly began to emit steam and leak fluid from the engine area. Concerned for safety and potential damage, the Defendant turned off the engine and contacted a mechanic for advice. The mechanic advised not to open the bonnet until the car had cooled down, as this could be dangerous. The Defendant then went into the pub to purchase a glass of water and to explain the situation to a member of staff, who reassured the Defendant that it would be fine to remain in the car park while the vehicle cooled. The Defendant, a young female, was alone and physically unable to push or relocate the vehicle. Any alleged overstay was therefore the result of unavoidable mechanical failure and reliance on staff assurance, not a deliberate or negligent act.

4. The Defendant also relies upon Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E. In particular, paragraphs 19 and 20 of that judgment, in which Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC explained that:

“The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars.”

Accordingly, the Defendant’s brief presence in the bay while waiting for the vehicle to cool and following the mechanic’s safety advice falls squarely within the Jopson principle of a “vicissitude of short duration” and cannot reasonably be regarded as parking in the contractual sense.

5. With regard to the Particulars of Claim (“POC”) in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments — Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) — demonstrate that this type of pleading fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.5. In Chan (15 August 2023), His Honour Judge 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 here, and the Defendant submits that the Court should strike out the claim under CPR 3.4. Similarly, in CPMS v Akande (10 May 2024), HHJ Evans confirmed that “Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim.” This claim fails that test.

Gr1pr

Too much info in 3, save it for the WS next year 

Just state that the vehicled suffered a mechanical breakdown 

Keep it concise  , waffling is OK in your future WS as I said 

1505grandad

".....Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30)...."

Pedantic observation  -  don't know where you copied the above from but the actual Judgment does not state an "s" on the end "Service".

Per Template Defence Announcement:-

"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."

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81571257/#Comment_81571257

Canvasdesign

Final Defense -

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 added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery
of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not
monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim
also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC')
maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason
for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the
right to amend the defence if details of the contract are
provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its
powers under CPR 3.4.
2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is
denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest
should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with
the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material
documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The
Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of
unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant
has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to
admit that they were the registered keeper.

3. With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) 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 Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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 the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'.

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. 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).

6. 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.

7. 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'.

8. 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'.

9. 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))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not
specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They
are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely)
event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is
no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. 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. The most common outcome of defended cases
is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs
(r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small
claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: '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))'.