Defence help - dark car park overnight

System · 8 April at 2:57PM

This discussion was created from comments split from: 'Template' defence suggestion - NB: ultimately, your choice of defence wording is your own.

irishchristof · 8 April at 11:31AM

I have just completed the Acknowledgement of Service.

In order to do my defence against ParkingEye, are there any examples I can use as my writing skills aren't the best!

Basically, my charge is for using a car park one night, whereby it was about 10pm to 10:30pm. The car park was sketchy AF! In complete darkness and looking like waste land behind a building. The photos used against me, you can barely see the car let alone who was driving. I haven't admitted I was driving, but I'm being charged because… "Pursuant to Sch 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, notice has been given to the registered keeper, making them liable for the Parking Charge payable upon breach."

irishchristof · 8 April at 11:40AM

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81954490#Comment_81954490

Chat GPT suggested this… but I dunno, what do you guys think?

DEFENCE

The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim.
The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver at the time of the alleged event on xx/xx/2025.
The Claimant seeks to hold the Defendant liable as keeper pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of POFA and is put to strict proof of full compliance.
In an ANPR “no ticket” case, the Claimant must fully comply with Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4, including but not limited to:
(a) specifying the period of parking;
(b) identifying the creditor;
(c) including mandatory statutory wording;
(d) properly serving a compliant Notice to Keeper.
The Defendant does not admit that the Notice to Keeper was compliant with POFA. In particular, the Claimant is put to strict proof that all mandatory wording and requirements were met.
In the absence of strict compliance with POFA, keeper liability does not arise and the Defendant cannot be held liable.
The Defendant was not the driver and has not been identified as such. The Claimant has provided no evidence of the identity of the driver.
The Defendant is under no legal obligation to identify the driver and declines to do so.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that a valid contract was formed with the driver. It is denied that the signage was sufficient to form any contract.
The Claimant is further put to strict proof of the actual period of parking. ANPR images merely show vehicle entry and exit times and do not establish the duration of parking.
The Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to disclose a proper cause of action. They do not specify the contractual terms allegedly breached nor the basis upon which the sum claimed is calculated.
The claim includes additional sums beyond the original parking charge which are not recoverable under POFA, nor supported by any contract. Such sums are an attempt at double recovery and constitute an abuse of process.
The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority from the landowner to issue parking charges and to pursue litigation in its own name.
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.