Substantial claim - Claim Form received - Saba - QDR -Harold Wood rail car park - Can you help??

BettyBerty13

Your help appreciated.

Here the keeper and the driver are not the same. 

The driver parked outside the parking bay at Harold Wood railway station on a number of occasions along with a number of other cars. Daily car park tickets had been paid for but the car was parked outside a bay.  Apparently signage was not visible regarding this but there is now one small near the entrance.   Saba car park attendant that happened to be in the car on one occasion told the driver it would be ok.   

It had come to light these tickets had been received by the keeper and would be substantial so following advice from this incredibly helpful forum, the following steps have been taken

1. NKT had been ignored.
2. Ignored all chasers from QDR
3. Letter before claim ignored.
4. Claim Form received on 29 Dec – Issue Date 22nd Dec. An AOS submitted on 29th Dec so there is some time to file a defence.  Imagine this is being pursued by QDR because of the substantial amount claimed.
5. Now we are struggling a bit with defence.  Can see the templates and noted below but am confused by a few things. On the Claim form it does not say what the detailed particulars are so we don’t know what to defend – do we wait for the separate detailed particulars within 14 days?  But that would have given us no time if AOS not submitted. So is there a defence in itself (that the details have not be provided)? 

The driver and registered keeper are not the same so is this a defence point to use?

Do we use the parking bay notice not being clearly visible as defence?

Lastly, we had understood from this forum that given this is a railway carpark and bylaws govern but the particulars note that the site are managed by the claimant on behalf of the landowner??  Is there a defence there to use?

 We believe some of these claims are over 6 months old but cannot be sure – do we wait and see what appears in the post and if older than 6 months demand they are removed??

 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. The registered keeper is not the drive and the NTK was non-POFA.  What to write here?

 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))'.

BettyBerty13

This is the Claim form received 

Gr1pr

So its SABA using QDR Solicitors, issue date 22nd December , so complete the AOS online on MCOL asap, if not done already ?

if its definitely in and logged on the MCOL claim history, your deadline date for the defence submission is 4pm on 26th January 2026

ChirpyChicken

Is this definitely under byelaws?
If so then your defence needs to change drastically and needs a completely different formulation 
If so happy to deal with this off board for you
I would go back and check 
The county court is the wrong venue entirely for tickets issued under byelaws 
Check any pcns that have been received in the past 

Coupon-mad

ChirpyChicken said:

Is this definitely under byelaws?
If so then your defence needs to change drastically and needs a completely different formulation 
If so happy to deal with this off board for you
I would go back and check asap as in the next day or two
The county court is the wrong venue entirely for tickets issued under byelaws 
Check any pcns that have been received in the past 

@ChirpyChicken knows his stuff and can assist with this for you but you'll need to dig out the supposed 'PCN' letters (not the debt crawler demands, nobody cares about those).

I suspect these were penalties and if so, they might be statute barred.

Also the deadline to defend is not in January because you have not been served with the detailed particulars yet. You need to show ChirpyChicken those when they arrive first.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 22/12/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 26/01/26

Coupon-mad

No because the POC haven't yet been served.

BettyBerty13

Hi all 
@Gr1pr  I have definitely completed the AOS and this is confirmed as received on 30/12 at 8am.

@ChirpyChicken
@Coupon-mad
I am trying to check on Saba site whether Harold Wood is under byelaws and it is not listed as being.  Yet simple googling noted that TFL Harold Wood car park operates under TfL Railway byelaw 14 so I believe it is. 

We have dug out a parking charge received in October 24  and I have just today received the Particulars of Claim letter and particulars of contraventions list.   The Ticket is a Notice of Parking Charge (NoPC)

I will drop you a PM @ChirpyChicken
Thank you for your replies. 

BettyBerty13

I can of course post the pic of the parking charge example and the particulars of claim now received on this thread if helpful too.

Coupon-mad

Yes let's see it all.

ChirpyChicken

Given the value of the claim unless you live far away i would go and check the signs, for the value of the claim its worth it
i would do that ASAP !