UKPC -DCBL - Tyseley Wharf B11- Defence

muslimahi

Hi all,

I'm helping my sister who is the registered keeper and has received the court claim.

Driver and a passenger were driving in this spot when driver felt ill so the driver/passenger switched. This took 1min 39 seconds according to the PCN.

The original PCN and appeal rejection along with claim forms are all on here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5ckb6eg15n2w65og3jise/BirminghamClaim_redacted.pdf?rlkey=s8eucra9hhqqgesvd4788262j&st=jlpa0s4i&dl=0

Back of PCN: https://ibb.co/XZMkNwdM

The original appeal was as below. We didn't bother with POPLA.

_____________________________________________________________________________

I dispute your ‘parking charge’ as the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement, and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client, the landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving, and no assumptions can be drawn. Your PCN appears to be a vague template. I therefore require a full explanation of the allegation, together with your evidence. This must include:

A close-up, dated photograph of the specific sign you contend was displayed at the location on the material date.

All images and/or video footage of the vehicle relied upon.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay, your evidence must also include the actual grace period agreed with the landowner.

For your information, the driver briefly stopped due to feeling unwell, and the passenger resumed driving shortly afterwards, which is evident from your own images/video.

Please cancel this PCN promptly or I will be happy to take the matter to court.

I look forward to your prompt response

_____________________________________________________________________________

Date of Issue is 20/04/2026

Date of Acknowledgement: 26/04/2026

_____________________________________________________________________________

GOOGLE MAP OF LOCATION: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4580002,-1.8327318,3a,76.1y,316.76h,74.79t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sOFjAgiNJwgrvjmbwlc_BIA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DOFjAgiNJwgrvjmbwlc_BIA%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26ll%3D0.0,0.0%26yaw%3D316.0%26pitch%3D16.0%26thumbfov%3D99%26cb_client%3Dgmm.iv.android?utm_source=mstt_0&g_ep=CAESBzI2LjE1LjEYACCBgQEqlAEsOTQyNjc3MjcsOTQyOTIxOTUsOTQyOTk1MzIsMTAwNzk2NDk4LDEwMDc5Nzc2MSwxMDA3OTY1MzUsOTQyODQ1MDIsOTQyODA1NzYsOTQyMDczOTQsOTQyMDc1MDYsOTQyMDg1MDYsOTQyMTg2NTMsOTQyMjk4MzksOTQyNzUxNjgsOTQyNzk2MTksMTAwNzk5MjQ2QgJHQg%3D%3D&skid=b00b0137-b4b7-4414-b684-64419ab4f447&g_st=aw

DEFENCE in the 1st post below. Please kindly advice me if its ok to post this. I will be flying off on 15th for 2 weeks so I would like to lodge the defence by tomorrow evening before I go.

muslimahi

Chatgpt has typed up the below defence using the template from newbies. Please can anyone look over and let me know if this is good to post or should I copy and paste the original template instead?

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 to formulate 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 [2015] UKSC 67 confirmed that a parking charge already includes the costs of enforcement. Any additional sums are therefore unrecoverable. The court is invited to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4.

________________________________________

2.

The allegation is vague and liability is denied in full. The Defendant admits only to being the registered keeper of the vehicle.

The Defendant was not the driver at the material time and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity. The Defendant is under no obligation to name the driver.

________________________________________

3. No Keeper Liability

The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The Notice to Keeper is non-compliant and fails to establish keeper liability. Accordingly, the Claimant cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the Defendant.

In the absence of full compliance with POFA, the claim against the registered keeper must fail.

________________________________________

4. The Facts – No Parking Event / Medical Necessity

The Defendant understands that the vehicle was stopped for approximately 1 minute and 39 seconds only.

This was not “parking” but a brief stop due to the driver feeling unwell, requiring the passenger to take over driving for safety reasons.

The Claimant’s own photographic evidence shows the driver’s door open, supporting that this was a transient, emergency-related stop rather than a parked vehicle.

Such a situation amounts to:

•   A temporary interruption, not parking, and

•   A necessity/safety stop, which cannot reasonably form a contractual breach

No reasonable parking operator could interpret this as acceptance of parking terms.

________________________________________

5. No Contract Formed / Inadequate Signage

It is denied that any contract was formed.

A contract requires offer, acceptance and consideration. A driver who stops briefly due to illness cannot be said to have read, understood, and accepted contractual terms.

The signage is put to strict proof of:

•   Visibility,

•   Prominence, and

•   Ability to be read within seconds.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires fairness and transparency. Any alleged terms in this case fail that test.

________________________________________

6. No Legitimate Interest – Distinguished from Beavis

The Claimant cannot rely on ParkingEye v Beavis.

In that case, a clear overstay in a retail car park created a legitimate interest.

Here:

•   The stop was under 2 minutes

•   No parking space was occupied for any meaningful time

•   The stop arose from illness and safety concerns

This is a trivial, unavoidable event, not misuse of parking facilities.

Any charge in these circumstances is punitive and unconscionable.

________________________________________

7. Lack of Landowner Authority

The Claimant is put to strict proof of full landowner authority to:

•   Issue parking charges, and

•   Pursue litigation.

This must include a contemporaneous contract and defined site boundaries.

________________________________________

8. Abuse of Process – Inflated Claim

The added costs are unrecoverable and constitute double recovery.

The court is invited to strike out or disallow these sums.

________________________________________

9. POFA – Maximum Sum Exceeded

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

The Claimant is not entitled to recover more than the original parking charge.

________________________________________

10. Conclusion

The Claimant has failed to establish:

•   Keeper liability

•   Driver identity

•   A valid contract

•   A legitimate interest

The claim is without merit and should be dismissed.

Coupon-mad

Nope, bin the ChatGPT rubbish defence!

Use the Template Defence, top of the forum. See my signature for how to get to page one in a nanosecond:

muslimahi

Thank you Coupon mad. Would everything else be relevant to our case so I can post the below as it is?

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 [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. 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 delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3.  The Defendant understands that the vehicle was stopped for 1 minute and 39 seconds only.

This was not “parking” but a brief stop due to the driver feeling unwell, requiring the passenger to take over driving for safety reasons. The Claimant’s own photographic evidence shows the driver’s door open, supporting that this was a transient, emergency-related stop rather than a parked vehicle. Such a situation amounts to:

•   A temporary interruption, not parking, and

•   A necessity/safety stop, which cannot reasonably form a contractual breach.

No reasonable parking operator could interpret this as acceptance of parking terms.

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 (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.

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, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. 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 Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and

(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 references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control 'indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. 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))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes 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

Perfect!

🙂

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 20/04/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 25/04/26 and before or on 09/05/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 26/05/26