I finally received the County Court claim after 5.9 years

dkl_uk

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, use that one. However, it needs a tweak for QDR cases and if you read that thread to the end you will see what to remove.

Yeah I just saved three bookmarks for weekend reading. The 11 paragraph one I understand needs a bit of a tweak.

I do have a question remaining even after some heavy reading tonight.

If there is a limit to how much defence text I can submit, where can I cram the fact I have:
1) Evidence of payment
2) Attempted to resolve with a phonecall in June, and an email in December (both resulting in zero effect)?

Is this a two stage process where I first submit my appeal, and then the evidence from 1 & 2 once the appeal has been received and ultimately ignored/declined?

Coupon-mad

This isn't an appeal.

Follow the easy 8 steps covered in the Template Defence sticky thread. No link is needed to that Announcement, or to the NEWBIES FAQS thread - which you must also read post 2 of, especially the red heading IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN'.

It explains the stages.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 19/01/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 24/01/26 and before or on 07/02/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 23/02/26

dkl_uk

Update: I have written my defence. It's long, but covers everything I want it to. Yes, I know I have admitted to being the driver. I was the driver.

Having read all of the posts I've been referred to, it's clear there won't be sufficient space for my own defence along with the excellent suggestions from @Coupon-mad. Is there anything in my own defence that's superfluous and should be removed to make way for what's been written in the sticky?

Please note the headings will be removed. I have kept them here for clarity on the forum.

DEFENCE

1. I deny that any sum is owed to the Claimant and deny liability for the claim in its entirety.
2. I admit to being the driver of the vehicle on the material date but deny that any breach of the terms and conditions occurred.
3. The Claimant alleges that the parking charge arose due to “INSUFFICIENT PAID TIME”. This allegation is denied.
4. On 21 March 2020, my passenger paid for parking at Llanberis Car Park using the Claimant’s payment system (a machine with keypad), paying the applicable tariff in full - £8 for a full day of parking.
5. Upon being informed the machine did not accept the registration details, I left the car park to park elsewhere.
6. I hold contemporaneous bank evidence confirming payment made on that date to the Claimant or its payment processor.
7. Accordingly, the parking charge was paid in full, no outstanding debt existed, and the Claimant has no cause of action.

Faulty Payment Equipment / Frustration of Contract

1. I further avers that the Claimant’s payment terminal at the site was not fully operational on the material date.
2. The terminal required the entry of a full vehicle registration number; however, several keys on the keypad were not functioning, making it impossible to enter the registration correctly.
3. The passenger nevertheless made payment in good faith using the available functionality of the machine, with the clear intention of complying with the advertised terms.
4. Any failure to correctly associate payment with the vehicle registration was caused by the Claimant’s defective equipment and not by any act or omission of the passenger.
5. The Claimant cannot rely on its own failure to maintain functioning payment equipment in order to allege a contractual breach.
6. In the alternative, the alleged contract was frustrated by the Claimant’s failure to provide a working payment mechanism, and no liability can arise from circumstances entirely outside my control.

Strict Proof

1. The Claimant is put to strict proof of:
2. The precise parking period alleged to be unpaid;
3. The tariff applicable at the material time;
4. That no payment was received for the parking session;
5. That its payment equipment and systems were fully operational on the material date.

No Legitimate Interest / No Loss

1. As the parking tariff was paid, the Claimant has suffered no loss.
2. This matter is clearly distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which concerned an unpaid charge and a legitimate commercial deterrent.
3. The pursuit of a paid parking charge is punitive, unreasonable, and without legitimate interest.

Abuse of Process – Inflated Sum

1. The Claimant seeks £170.00 plus additional contractual or collection charges.
2. Such sums are not recoverable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and are unsupported by any valid contractual term.
3. The addition of these sums constitutes an abuse of process, as confirmed in Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (Bradford County Court, 2020).

Interest

1. The claim for interest under s.69 County Courts Act 1984 is denied, as no principal debt exists upon which interest could accrue.

Failure to Engage and Unreasonable Conduct

1. Following receipt of the Notice to Keeper in April 2020, I believe that an appeal was submitted to the Claimant at that time; however, given the passage of almost five years and the Claimant’s subsequent lack of engagement, I cannot now be certain whether that correspondence was successfully received or acknowledged.
2. After submitting that appeal, I received no substantive response and no further correspondence from the Claimant for a period of approximately five years.
3. The next contact received was in June 2025, not from the Claimant but from a third-party debt collection agent demanding payment.
4. I contacted the debt collector by telephone in an attempt to resolve the matter. The agent refused to engage in any discussion regarding the circumstances of the charge or evidence of payment, stating that payment must be made or the matter would proceed to legal action.
5. This conduct is contrary to the principles of good faith and the Overriding Objective, and denied myself any reasonable opportunity to resolve the matter without litigation.
6. In December 2025, I received a Letter Before Action. I responded by email within the stated deadline, setting out the position and disputing the alleged debt.
7. The Claimant failed to acknowledge or respond to that correspondence and proceeded to issue a County Court claim regardless.
8. The Claimant’s failure to engage, combined with the prolonged period of inactivity and disregard of a substantive pre-action response, amounts to unreasonable conduct and a failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

Conclusion

1. The claim is without merit and should be dismissed.
2. I respectfully invite the Court to consider the Claimant’s conduct when exercising its discretion on costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g).

Le_Kirk

Just use the standard template defence and add ONE paragraph, usually #3, which refutes what is in the POC. The rest you can keep for the witness statement. Note that defences are written in the third person, so "the defendant" not "I" or "me".

Gr1pr

Or use the bespoke 11 paragraph SMART PARKING defence in the group thread by member sluzz

Use MCOL to add your defence ( which is written in the 3rd person. )

Save Your stories and justifications and evidence for the Witness Statement plus Exhibits bundle stage in a few months time, probably in the summer

Coupon-mad

There was no need to write a defence.

This is what the Smart Parking Defence Group thread is for, or if you are uncomfortable with relying on their lack of POFA compliance (because you previously named the driver?) then use the normal Template Defence, where you were signposted to earlier.

dkl_uk

Alright then, so following the guidance and replacing para 3/4 from the sticky thread with with my own mitigating factors results in this. Is that alright to submit?

Edit: MCOL now back up. No idea what my browser was doing. Pasted into MCOL and cuts off at "although it might be contended that costs should be" so I'll fiddle with some words to make it fit.

I just need someone to give me the thumbs up to aid in my confidence that I'm submitting the right thing in the right place.

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 lessee and driver.

3. The defendant denies that any sum is owed to the Claimant and deny liability for the claim in its entirety. The defendant admits to being the driver of the vehicle on the material date but denies that any breach of the terms and conditions occurred. The Claimant alleges that the parking charge arose due to “INSUFFICIENT PAID TIME”. This allegation is denied. On 21 March 2020, the passenger paid for parking at Llanberis Car Park using the Claimant’s payment system (a machine with keypad), paying the applicable tariff in full. The defendant holds contemporaneous bank evidence confirming payment made on that date to the Claimant or its payment processor. Accordingly, the parking charge was paid in full, no outstanding debt existed, and the Claimant has no cause of action.

4. The defendant further avers that the Claimant’s payment terminal at the site was not fully operational on the material date. The terminal required the entry of a full vehicle registration number; however, several keys on the keypad were not functioning, making it impossible to enter the registration correctly. The passenger nevertheless made payment in good faith using the available functionality of the machine, with the clear intention of complying with the advertised terms. Any failure to correctly associate payment with the vehicle registration was caused by the Claimant’s defective equipment and not by any act or omission of the passenger. The Claimant cannot rely on its own failure to maintain functioning payment equipment in order to allege a contractual breach. In the alternative, the alleged contract was frustrated by the Claimant’s failure to provide a working payment mechanism, and no liability can arise from circumstances entirely outside the Defendant’s control.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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'.

9. 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'.

10. 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.

11. 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))'.

Coupon-mad

Why are you using that one and admitting to driving, and not the bespoke Smart one that kills all these specific claims off?

Gr1pr

Your double air quotes will mess it up, hence your problems, do not use " < > on MCOL

Change them to something like. ' a single one