Parking Charge CNBC against BW Legal - Residents' Parking

theb0mbers4ever

Hi All,

Posting on here as a newbie and collated different posts to create a defence which I'm hoping to get feedback on, as I received a claim form from the Civil National Business Centre.

The claim in question is related to 2 parking charges in November 2025, where I, as a renter, parked within the estate in a designated area. In the first charge, the parking permit slipped from the dashboard and fell onto the floor and therefore I was charged with no permit displayed. In the second charge, the parking permit was inserted "too deep" in front of the windshield, therefore a small part of the permit wasn't displayed (note that there isn't any text on the permit in that area).

• Do I need to edit/include anything else?
• Should I ask the estate management to cancel the fines while I appeal?
• To confirm, I should email the defence rather than submitting through Money Claim Online, correct?
• Anything else?

Here's my draft defence:

• 1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration [NUMBER PLATE] (“the Vehicle”) and was the driver on the date(s) referred to in the Particulars of Claim. Save where expressly admitted below, each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is denied, and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

• 2. The Particulars of Claim are sparse, generic and templated, and fail to comply with CPR 16.4. They do not adequately identify the precise terms of the contract alleged, the conduct said to constitute a breach, or how the sum claimed is calculated. The Defendant reserves the right to amend or expand this Defence once proper particulars are provided.Background

• 3. At all material times the Defendant parked the Vehicle at [LOCATION] under a valid parking permit (permit number XXX) issued by Countrywide Parking. The Defendant was at all times a person authorised and entitled to park the Vehicle at that location.

• 4. On 15 May, 2025 the permit had slipped from its displayed position on the dashboard. On 20 May, 2025 the permit was partially obscured from view. On both occasions a valid permit was held and present in the Vehicle and the Defendant was entitled to park. Any alleged breach was accordingly trivial, technical and de minimis, and caused the Claimant and/or the landowner no loss whatsoever.The alleged contract and charge

• 5. It is denied that any contract arose entitling the Claimant to the sum claimed. If (which is denied) a contract was formed, the signage and terms relied upon were not sufficiently clear or prominent to bring so onerous a charge to the Defendant’s attention, and no binding term to pay the sum claimed was incorporated.

• 6. The sum demanded is a penalty and is unenforceable. The Defendant relies on the fact that ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not assist the Claimant: in that case the charge was justified by a legitimate interest in managing the turnover of spaces used by the general public. Here, by contrast, the Defendant was an authorised permit holder entitled to occupy the space. No comparable legitimate interest arises, and a charge of £340 levied against a validly permitted vehicle is extravagant, unconscionable and unenforceable.

• 7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it holds the necessary legal standing and authority from the landowner both to form contracts with motorists and to bring this claim in its own name.

• 8. The sum claimed appears to include an additional amount (of approximately £140 over and above the original parking charge, described as "contractual recovery costs” or administrative costs. The Defendant avers that no such sum was actually incurred or is recoverable, and that its addition is an abuse of process, the original advertised charge already being a pre-determined sum said to represent the operator’s full loss.

• 9. In the circumstances, the Defendant denies liability for the sum claimed, or for any sum, and respectfully invites the court to strike out and/or dismiss the claim.
  

Brie

I'd definitely suggest trying to get this cancelled by the estate management.

Hopefully someone will be along shortly to comment on your draft.

Car1980

Permit not clearly displayed? You can see a clear photo of it as you say!

Second one doesn't show a photo of a dashboard so how can they say?!

Your defence for paragraph 3 would be downright denial IMO. Make what you written more definitive. The onus is on them to prove. Judges are still human and I'd see if you can add some disgust / anger in there somehow. Doesn't hurt.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 31/05/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 19/06/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 03/07/26

Way too late to appeal but it can be cancelled by the estate management

Look out for more detailed POC as promised in the claim form, which should arrive by 19/06/26; if not, use the defence that includes Chan & Akande

Coupon-mad

You aren't "appealing" you are defending and it's probably too late for landowner cancellation.

I should email the defence rather than submitting through Money Claim Online, correct?

No. Incorrect - and bin that defence.

Use the Template Defence you saw when you read post 2 of NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST.

However, first:

AWAIT THE FULL PARTICULARS.