VARS Technology claim – Starbucks car park – signage unclear – defence help please

coffeewoman1092

Hi everyone,

I have read the NEWBIES thread and would appreciate some guidance before submitting my defence.

Claimant: VARS Technology Ltd
Claim type: Parking charge – alleged overstay
Claim amount: £270
Issue date on claim form: 27 February 2026
AOS: Submitted via MCOL

Location: Starbucks customer car park.

The Particulars of Claim state only that the vehicle “overstayed the allowed time”.

Background:

The car park has signage stating “90 minutes free parking”. However, there is also a tablet inside the Starbucks where customers can enter their vehicle registration.

The signage outside does not clearly state that customers must enter their registration into the tablet. The tablet itself simply says “Customer Parking” and does not warn that registration is mandatory or that failing to register may result in a parking charge.

I have since entered my registration into the tablet and it granted parking until 23:59, which suggests the system actually allows longer parking for customers who register their vehicle.

At the time of the alleged events the driver stayed longer than 90 minutes while using the Starbucks café to study. The driver was a genuine customer.

The keeper had been a regular customer of this Starbucks for around a year prior to the alleged events and had parked there many times without issue. The tablet system was recently introduced at some point, hence the keeper not realising and putting in the reg into the system.

Photos taken recently show:

• entrance sign stating “90 mins free parking”
• small print referring to terms and conditions
• signage on the Starbucks window and wall (same wording)
• no mention of the registration tablet on any sign
• the tablet inside the café granting parking until 23:59 once a registration is entered.

I also have Google Street View images showing the signage appears to have been installed sometime between September 2023 and October 2024.

I am currently drafting my defence based on the MSE template and will be arguing:

• inadequate signage / unclear contractual terms
• failure to clearly communicate the registration requirement
• confusing parking system (90-minute signage vs full-day tablet validation)
• added costs on the claim being unrecoverable.

I also wanted to ask some questions:

1. Should the defence mention that the keeper had been a regular customer for a long time before the alleged events and that the parking system appears to have changed without clear notice?
2. The signage refers only to a 90-minute limit, but the tablet grants all-day parking when a vehicle is registered. Does this contradiction help demonstrate unclear terms?
3. Is this a good defence? I now have two of these for £270 and feel this is wholly unfair, but am concerned that the point of 'overstaying' is correct but the 'contract' seems to be inconsistent.

There is also a second claim relating to the same car park one week later, but that claim is against a different keeper (my partner).

Any advice before submitting the defence would be greatly appreciated.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 27/02/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 01/04/26

Gr1pr

Name the solicitors involved

Post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first

Then we can determine which defence template to use, in announcements

Exhibits may be required in several months time, not at this early stage

Coupon-mad

questions:

• Should the defence mention that the keeper had been a regular customer for a long time before the alleged events and that the parking system appears to have changed without clear notice?

Yes and the two defendants can mirror each other's defences.

• The signage refers only to a 90-minute limit, but the tablet grants all-day parking when a vehicle is registered. Does this contradiction help demonstrate unclear terms?

Yes I agree. The allegation of overstay seems incorrect. The tablet option should be mentioned on the sign.

• Is this a good defence? I now have two of these for £270 and feel this is wholly unfair, but am concerned that the point of 'overstaying' is correct but the 'contract' seems to be inconsistent.

Yes these facts will be fine to slot concisely into the Template Defence.

Is this DCB Legal?

coffeewoman1092

hi thanks so much for the comments so this is DCB legal yes with VARS as the claimant. Both claims are the same, just a week apart.

Coupon-mad

Your para 3 can & should deny overstay. There is no time limit term that applies to customers of xxxxx.

coffeewoman1092

Please could someone let me know if this defence is okay? I have had trouble understanding everything and this is giving me such anxiety! Thank you in advance.

Defence

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. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false ‘fee’ or damages 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 held that a parking charge more than covered the costs of enforcement such as DVLA enquiries and the issuing of automated letters. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the Court to intervene and the Defendant invites the Court to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation is vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The Defendant admits only that they are the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant has little knowledge of the alleged event beyond the information provided in the claim.

3. The Defendant understands that the allegation relates to a vehicle allegedly overstaying a ninety-minute free parking period in a customer car park serving Starbucks. The driver was a genuine customer using the café.

The signage at the location states “90 minutes free parking” but does not clearly explain that customers must enter their vehicle registration into a tablet inside the premises to validate their stay. The Defendant had been a regular customer of this Starbucks location for approximately a year prior to the alleged event and had parked there many times without issue.

It appears that a system requiring vehicle registration via a tablet inside the café had been introduced at some point, however this requirement was not clearly communicated by the signage. The tablet itself simply displays “Customer Parking” and does not warn that registration is mandatory or that failure to register may result in a parking charge.

The Defendant has since observed that entering a vehicle registration into the tablet grants parking until 23:59 on the same day. This indicates that the parking scheme operates differently than the signage suggests. The Defendant therefore avers that the terms of parking were unclear and incapable of forming a transparent contractual agreement.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract there must be an offer, acceptance and consideration. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that consumer notices and terms be fair and transparent. The Defendant avers that the Claimant uses unclear and unfair notices and is put to strict proof of the adequacy and prominence of the signage relied upon.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its standing to issue parking charges at this site and to pursue litigation in its own name, including a contemporaneous contract with the landowner.

6. To impose a parking charge there must be both a breach and a legitimate interest extending beyond mere compensation for loss, together with adequate notice of the charge and relevant obligations. None of these elements have been demonstrated. The Defendant avers that the alleged charge arises from unclear signage and an opaque parking system, which distinguishes this case from the circumstances in Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 98, 100, 193 and 198 of the Beavis judgment which explain that the parking charge itself already incorporates the operator’s costs of enforcement. The Claimant’s attempt to add further costs is therefore improper.

8. The parking industry has been the subject of significant criticism by Parliament, resulting in the
Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which seeks to curb abusive practices including the addition of inflated debt recovery charges.

9. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the maximum recoverable sum is the parking charge stated on the notice. The Claimant’s attempt to recover additional sums is therefore unlawful.

10. The Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed. The Defendant also seeks the Court’s consideration of costs should the Claimant pursue an exaggerated or unreasonable claim.

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Should I highlight more the fact that the parking system had changed recently before my ticket, which is the only reason why this parking charge has happened as I was so used to the old system and the tablet in the cafe wasn't obvious at all??

coffeewoman1092

I have reworded paragraph 3 to highlight the issues with the tablet:

3. The Defendant understands that the allegation relates to a vehicle allegedly overstaying a ninety-minute free parking period in a customer car park serving Starbucks. The driver was a genuine customer using the café.

The signage at the location states “90 minutes free parking” but does not clearly explain that customers must enter their vehicle registration into a tablet inside the premises to validate their stay. The Defendant had been a regular customer of this Starbucks location for approximately a year prior to the alleged event and had parked there many times without issue.

It appears that a system requiring vehicle registration via a tablet inside the café had been introduced at some point, however this requirement was not clearly communicated by the signage and the tablet itself was not prominent upon entering the premises. The tablet merely displays “Customer Parking” and does not warn that registration is mandatory or that failure to register may result in a parking charge.

The Defendant has since observed that entering a vehicle registration into the tablet grants parking until 23:59 on the same day, allowing customers to remain well beyond ninety minutes without issue. This demonstrates that the parking scheme operates differently than the signage suggests and that the terms relied upon by the Claimant were unclear and incapable of forming a transparent contractual agreement.

Gr1pr

2 observations

The defence doesn't seem to be based on the template defence by coupon mad in announcements at the top of the forum by coupon mad , especially paragraph 2

The statement of truth is at least 5 years out of date, which makes me think that you have used a very old example that used to be emailed, so use examples within the last 6 months

Bear in mind that you dont need that statement of truth when submitting your defence on MCOL

coffeewoman1092

I have been using different sources for my defence, would this be a better defence to use the wording from the couponmad post?

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. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false ‘fee’ or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). 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 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the costs of enforcement including DVLA enquiries and an automated letter chain. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. 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.

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The Defendant admits only that they were the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.

3. The Defendant understands that the allegation relates to a vehicle allegedly overstaying a ninety-minute free parking period in a customer car park serving Starbucks.

The driver was a genuine customer using the café.

The signage at the location states “90 minutes free parking” but does not clearly explain that customers must enter their vehicle registration into a tablet inside the premises to validate their stay. The Defendant had been a regular customer of this Starbucks location for approximately a year prior to the alleged event and had parked there many times without issue.

It appears that a system requiring customers to register their vehicle via a tablet inside the café had been introduced at some point. However, this requirement was not clearly communicated by the signage. The tablet itself simply displays “Customer Parking” and does not warn that registration is mandatory or that failure to do so may result in a parking charge.

The Defendant has since observed that entering a vehicle registration into the tablet grants parking until 23:59 on the same day, allowing customers to remain well beyond ninety minutes without issue. This demonstrates that the parking scheme operates differently than the signage suggests and that the parking terms relied upon by the Claimant were unclear and incapable of forming a transparent contractual agreement.

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. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 mandates a test of fairness and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and consumer notices. On the limited information provided, this case appears to involve unclear terms and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the adequacy and prominence of the signage relied upon.

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.

6. To impose a parking charge there must be both a breach and a legitimate interest extending beyond compensation for loss together with adequate notice of the charge and relevant obligations. None of which have been demonstrated. This charge arises from unclear signage and a confusing parking system and is therefore fully distinguished from the circumstances in Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 98, 100, 193 and 198 of the Beavis judgment confirming that the parking charge already incorporates the operator’s enforcement costs.

8. The parking industry has been subject to significant criticism by Parliament resulting in the
Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019
which seeks to curb abusive practices including inflated debt recovery fees.

9. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 the claim exceeds the maximum sum recoverable.

10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs pursuant to CPR 27.14 and asks the Court to consider the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct in bringing an exaggerated claim.

Gr1pr

You are only supposed to add an ending to paragraph 2 and add your concise bespoke paragraph 3, none of the rest are altered

Paragraph 2 is at least 3 lines, not one and a half