Court Parking Charge Money Claim

Howl_Pendragon

Hello all,

I am looking for some advice in relation to a court claim i have received in relation to a parking charge from 2023.

The below are the particulars of the claim:

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge (PC) issued to vehicle **** *** at [redacted locstion]

2. The date of contravention is **/**/2023. The PC was issued with a PC by the Claimant.

3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms of the contract. Reason: Insufficient Paid Time. 
  
In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170, being the total of the PC and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.04 until judgment or sooner payment. 

3. Costs and court fees.

I have read the previous advice on MSE forum.  I have completed my acknowledgement of service online and as I understand it, now have 28 days to file my defence through MCOL. 

I have drafted a defence through a combination of the advice provided here on MSE forum and my own research. I would be grateful if someone more familiar with this process could have a look and offer any relevant feedback or advice.

I am certain that the defence is too long to submit via MCOL. It is my intention to email my defence in pdf format to ccbcdefence@justice.gov.uk once it is complete. I will then complete the MCOL text box with reference to my email ensuring it has the relevant reference numbers.

My draft defence is as follows:

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all.

1A. The allegation is vague and liability is denied. The Claimant delayed substantially before issuing proceedings, causing prejudice to the Defendant’s ability to understand or investigate the circumstances of an event said to have occurred in [month] 2023. The Defendant is the registered keeper only. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all allegations.

2. The Particulars of Claim are sparse, generic, and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paras 3 & 7, which require a claimant to “state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”. The Claimant merely asserts that the Defendant is “indebted” without stating:

- the contractual terms allegedly breached 
- the conduct said to give rise to the charge 
- the duration of parking 
- the amount of time allegedly paid for 
- how the Defendant is said to be liable 

The Defendant is unable properly to plead to the allegation due to the inadequacy of the Particulars.

3. The Particulars state “insufficient paid time”. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the allegation, including:

- the period of parking 
- the payment made (if any) 
- the amount of parking time that payment entitled the driver to 
- the tariff applicable at the material time 
- the duration of any alleged overstay 
- the cost of any additional time that would have been required 
- the terms allegedly breached 

The Claimant is further put to strict proof of the actual amount allegedly unpaid, whether this is said to be the full tariff or a smaller shortfall arising from an alleged overstay.

Without this information, the Defendant cannot understand the basis of the allegation.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached. To form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s62 and s71) requires the court to assess the fairness and prominence of consumer notices, with Schedule 2 (examples 6, 10, 14 and 18) highlighting unfair or disproportionate terms. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the signage and terms were clear, prominent, fair, and capable of forming a contract at the material time and at the specific location of the alleged event. The Claimant must provide contemporaneous photographs and evidence from the date in question. Generic, template, stock, or “example” signage, or evidence of the Claimant’s general compliance elsewhere, is not sufficient. Strict proof is required that the actual signs and terms in place on the day met statutory requirements.

5. If the Claimant wishes to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper, they are put to strict proof of full compliance with every mandatory requirement of Schedule 4. This includes strict proof that the Notice to Keeper was posted and served within the statutory timeframe, as required by paragraphs 9(4) and 9(5). The Claimant must demonstrate the date of posting, the method of posting, and compliance with the statutory presumption of service. Absent strict proof of timely service and full POFA compliance, the Claimant cannot transfer liability from the unidentified driver to the registered keeper.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof of a contemporaneous, contract (with only necessary redactions) with the landowner granting them authority to issue charges and pursue litigation, including:

- the contract 
- schedules 
- site boundary map 
- dates and scope of authority 

This is required by the BPA Code of Practice. The Defendant invites the court to scrutinise any such contract for completeness, accuracy, and relevance to the material date.

7. To impose a parking charge, the Claimant must demonstrate:

1. a legitimate interest extending.        beyond mere compensation, and 
2. adequate notice of the charge.

The Defendant denies that the charge protects any legitimate interest comparable to that identified in ParkingEye v Beavis. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

8. The Claimant seeks a total sum approaching £300, yet the Particulars of Claim do not explain how this figure has been calculated or what the original parking charge was. The Defendant cannot tell from the information provided whether this total includes any additional or invented sums. The Defendant makes no admission about the composition of the claimed amount but is concerned that it includes unrecoverable add‑ons, together with court fees and fixed legal representative’s costs that have been presented in a manner that inflates the overall figure. Any such additional amounts are unrecoverable and amount to double recovery. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (2020), HHJ Jackson held that such add‑ons were improper. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis confirmed that the parking charge itself already incorporates operational costs. The court is invited to disallow any sum beyond the original parking charge, whatever that may be shown to be, and to scrutinise the Claimant’s presentation of the total claimed amount as disproportionate and misleading.

8A. The Claimant also appears to seek interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984. The Defendant denies that any such interest is recoverable. The Claimant has delayed for many months before issuing proceedings, and any passage of time has been caused entirely by the Claimant’s own inaction. It would be unjust to award interest on a sum that is itself disputed and inflated, particularly where the delay may have had the effect of increasing the amount claimed. The court is invited to find that any attempt to recover interest in these circumstances is unfair, disproportionate, and amounts to an improper attempt to profit from the Claimant’s own delay.

9. POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) limits keeper liability to the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the original charge, the legal basis for any additional sums, and full statutory entitlement to recover more than the parking charge itself.

10. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Claimant is put to strict proof of every element of their case. The court is invited to dismiss the claim.

I'd be very grateful for any advice on either the defence itself, my intentions to submit via email, or around my understandings of the process.  As you may gather, I have not gone through this process before.

Thank you.

Le_Kirk

What is the date of issue of the claim form? That is not the template defence, check again in the announcements for the template and use that with your bespoke paragraph #3

Howl_Pendragon

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82012084#Comment_82012084

The court claim was issued on the 20.05.2026.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 20/05/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 08/06/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 22/06/26

Howl_Pendragon

Thanks for this Le_Kirk. I realise the defence is not a direct cooy of the template defence on here. I have tried to create something that mirrors the arguments and legislation used in the template without copying it word for word. Are you able to comment whether the defence I've drafted is appropriate?

1505grandad

Who is the claimant and lawyers (if any)?

Coupon-mad

If this is Smart Parking use the defence by @Meltof as seen in every Smart Claim thread!

Howl_Pendragon

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82012173#Comment_82012173

The Claimant is Smart Parking. DCB legal appear to be acting on their behalf.

Howl_Pendragon

Thank you. I think I've found it.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82012365#Comment_82012365

We have such a tsunami of Smart Claims this past month, here is my template reply on how to defend:

Defending these is dead easy!

Just click on the username @Meltof

Copy their version of a Smart Parking final defence posted on April 12th.

No changes. No added facts.

Don't copy & paste it here as we really don't want to keep being asked to check this defence in thread after thread in May, which is driving us regulars a bit mad with this current Smart Parking batch!

Literally read any Smart thread…

Then follow the 8 steps in the Template Defence thread. Easy peasy. It'll be discontinued just before the hearing fee falls due in the Autumn/Winter.

You won't pay a penny.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82012365#Comment_82012365

Did you get the defence in? Takes 10 minutes.