Defence Advice

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82166534#Comment_82166534

Come on, clearly the judge doesn't agree so you MUST amend the defence to add more facts.

rustlings

Thanks, I was going to add this. Does this look reasonable do you think?

2A. In compliance with the Court’s Order, the Defendant confirms that he was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle identified in the Particulars of Claim and parked it at the Kingston Centre, Milton Keynes, on 22 October 2025. The Defendant provides the following account to clarify and supplement paragraph 2 and to explain the factual basis upon which liability is disputed.

2B. The Defendant parked while visiting McDonald’s at the site as a genuine customer. The Defendant holds a screenshot from the McDonald’s app recording a purchase at that location on the date and at the time of the visit. The Defendant did not exceed the four-hour maximum stay.

2C. Although the Particulars of Claim do not identify the particular parking term allegedly breached or the conduct said to constitute that breach, the Notice to Keeper dated 25 October 2025 states that the vehicle was not parked fully within the confines of a marked bay or a designated parking area. The Defendant addresses that allegation below while maintaining the objection to the lack of specificity in the Particulars of Claim.

2D. The Defendant’s account is that part of two tyres rested on the painted line marking the bay boundary; the tyres were not wholly beyond that line. The Defendant does not admit that this amounted to parking outside the confines of the marked bay in breach of an enforceable contractual term. The vehicle caused no obstruction.

2E. The Defendant photographed a sign at the car park stating: “All vehicles must park fully within the confines of a marked bay and must not cause an obstruction.” The Defendant relies on the distinction between tyres resting partly on a boundary marking and a vehicle parked wholly beyond that marking. The photographed wording does not expressly explain whether resting partly on the painted boundary line is treated as being outside the bay. The Defendant contends that the Claimant must establish how the vehicle’s actual position breached the applicable term.

2F. Alternatively, if the Court finds that the tyre’s position constituted a breach, the Defendant submits that it was a minor encroachment which caused no obstruction. The Defendant asks the Court to consider the limited nature of that encroachment, the absence of obstruction and the use of the car park for its intended purpose when assessing the Claimant’s entitlement to enforce the £100 charge in these particular circumstances.

2G. The Defendant admits that the parking charge has not been paid, but denies that the sums claimed are due. The Defendant disputes the allegation that the act of parking in the circumstances described gave rise to an enforceable obligation to pay the £100 charge, and separately disputes the additional £55 contractual costs and interest claimed.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's good.

You could change this as shown:

2F. Alternatively, if the Court finds that the tyre’s position constituted a breach, the Defendant submits that it was a minor encroachment which caused no obstruction. The Defendant asks the Court to consider the limited nature of any encroachment and the absence of obstruction. There was no mischief or loss caused and the ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court case is fully distinguished. At the hearing, the court must fairly scrutinise the evidence, with the doctrine of 'de minimis' in mind, as well as the court's statutory duty to consider the test of fairness and prominence of all terms and consumer notices, pursuant to s71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Put all the new paras in red (on a Word Doc, within your original defence, repeated in full but with the original paras in black font) then add the long statement of truth and add your electronic signature and today's date.

Then add headers at the top identifying the case:

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NORTHAMPTON

CLAIM NUMBER:

Claimant (not the solicitor firm!):

Defendant:

AMENDED DEFENCE

…then save as a PDF. Must be a PDF.

Then email it to Northampton county court and to the solicitors with URGENT - AMENDED DEFENCE AS ORDERED - and the Claim Number.

Do NOT email it to the CNBC.

And please edit your thread title to show the claimants and the solicitors. The lack of info in the thread title hampers us.

Gr1pr

I would also suggest that you add the latest version, of the 3 lines defence Statement of Truth at the bottom, then E sign it, and add the date too, before saving it as a pdf