UKCPS invoice - started court claims

codan84

Thank you all for your help thus far.
This is the initial point 3 for my defense, any pointers or opinions?

————

3. The Defendant relies on the following matters, which are to be taken cumulatively:

(a) The signage at the site was inadequate, unclear, and incapable of forming a legally binding contract. In particular:

    (i) The signage was small, poorly positioned, and not readily legible from a parked vehicle;

    (ii) There was no clear delineation of bays within the car park to indicate allocation to specific businesses;

    (iii) There was an absence of prominent signage in close proximity to the individual bays;

    (iv) As such, the alleged contractual terms were not adequately brought to the attention of the driver.

(b) The presence of handwritten notices placed by individual businesses on their premises, warning patrons to park in specific bays, evidences a widespread and ongoing issue with unclear parking arrangements. This demonstrates that the Claimant’s signage was insufficient and that the Claimant has failed to take reasonable steps to remedy a known source of confusion, instead continuing enforcement.

(c) The Defendant engaged with the matter at all material times, responding to correspondence and disputing the charge. The Defendant was met only with standardised, template responses, indicating a failure by the Claimant to properly consider the merits of the dispute.

(d) The Claimant has incorrectly applied interest from 13 May 2025, despite the Notice to Keeper being dated 22 April 2025 and deemed served no earlier than 24 April 2025. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the legal basis for the earlier accrual of interest, which appears premature and unjustified.

(e) The Notice to Keeper contains an incorrect description of the location, referring to “Upper Warrengate Car Park”. The Defendant did not park at that location on the material date. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to operate at the stated site and to issue parking charges in respect of that land.

(f) The Claimant failed to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. No compliant Letter of Claim was served prior to the issue of proceedings. The last correspondence received by the Defendant was dated 10 September 2025, after which the Claimant issued proceedings without further notice. This deprived the Defendant of the opportunity to properly engage, seek clarification, and attempt resolution, and amounts to unreasonable conduct.

Coupon-mad

I doubt that will all fit on MCOL but you can remove the template's last para 10.