Residential parking fines

2cattommy

Yep, that's their photo of the permit. That's my argument!

I've checked the POC and added a redacted version below. They don't claim 7 individual dates and only say it was issued between two dates. They don't identify the individual breaches or explain how the overall fee was calculated from the PCNs. The individual dates/details only appear in later evidence. The sum claimed is a substantially higher four figure fee when the sign clearly states £100 per PCN.

Is that the point you are suggesting Chan - i.e. the witness statement can't retrospectively amend an inadequately pleaded POC? Secondly, would you raise this at the hearing given my skeleton has already been served or would you send a short supplementary skeleton beforehand?

Coupon-mad

They don't claim 7 individual dates and only say it was issued between two dates. They don't identify the individual breaches or explain how the overall fee was calculated from the PCNs. The individual dates/details only appear in later evidence.

That's really not OK for POC.

It doesn't even specify the number of PCNs, nor the private land - at all - it says 'various locations' so they could literally have added any old PCNs at WS stage and more than seven!

So you need a supplementary skeleton attaching

• the transcript from HHJ Moloney from the initial 'test case' hearing at Cambridge Court in ParkingEye v Beavis. Plus Excel v Wilkinson and also include a link to the High Court authority of the Duchess of Bedford House case. You were allocated a bay and the permit is visibly for that bay, so on the balance of probabilities you were always known by the warden to be 'authorised' and this entire claim should never have seen the light of day. The PCNs also give the reason 'without a valid permit' which is a blatant untruth;
• Chan & Akande transcripts because the POC is atrociously inadequately pleaded. It says 'at one or more locations'(!) and doesn't even tell you it is seven PCNs or the dates. Later in the WS they have said they are claiming 'the total of the PCNs' but that's not true. PCNs cannot be £170 or £160 a pop!

You could just add the below extra bit to the usual Chan & Akande section of the bespoke Template defence (use it plus this because Liberty Homes is High Court):

The Claim fails to plead and specify any term/breach, thus the binding authority of Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC) applies, where the High Court found the Particulars to be deficient and struck them out due to a lack of required detail. The court is invited to strike out and dismiss the claim in accordance with the High Court authority of Liberty Homes (Kent).

At the hearing, if they send a rep who says to the judge the preposterously 'bad faith' argument (as the WS says) "yeah but we couldn't tell which site that permit was for…" do you know what your response is?

"Judge, quite apart from that being absurd because my permit was issued by the Claimant and had been seen by their wardens every day for xx months/years, I think the court should be far more concerned that their Claim doesn't even specify the site (at all), so it is a bit rich to criticise me…"

Oh, and of course there is an important bit of news that the judge should read: a third thing to attach and link to!

If you have not yet seen and read the CMA's Open Letter and consumer protection compliance warning to the parking industry 2 weeks ago, we suggest you go read it now. You'll see!

In fact that should be the FIRST thing you link to and attach, and your skelly #2 should use that news (it was only 2 weeks ago that the CMA published this) as the reason why you need to add the following to assist the court when considering the court's Consumer Right Act 2015 s71 duty to look at fairness, transparency and the doctrines of good faith and open dealing, as expounded by the CMA at the end of July in a robust consumer protection warning to the parking sector.

2cattommy

Thanks once again for your excellent points. I've drafted a short supplementary skeleton based on the points you have raised and have attached a redacted copy. I've deliberately kept my original skeleton focused on the substantive issue of authority to park, so this is intended only to supplement it with the POC and additional £70 points.

I've tried not to overstate Chan/Akande/Wilkinson and have included Liberty Homes and the recent CMA letter as suggested

Before serving it, I'd be really grateful for any comments to check I've used the authorities properly and whether anything should be removed/altered. I think keeping it concise is probably the best step forward.

I'd also appreciate some advice on practicalities. My original witness statement, evidence and Skelton have already been served and the hearing is coming up shortly.Would you serve this supplementary skeleton and authorities bundle now by email to both the Court and Calimant's solicitors, or is there a particular procedure I should follow given the original deadline for evidence has passed? Should I expressly ask the court for permission to rely on the supplementary skeleton/authorities, or simply serve them and explain that they raise legal points rather than new factual evidence?Also, how far before the hearing would you ideally serve it?

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTARY SKELETON ARGUMENT

A. Purpose and scope

1. This supplementary skeleton is intended to assist the Court on two discrete legal issues which are additional to, and do not replace, the Defendant's primary factual case and the skeleton argument already served: (i) the adequacy of the Particulars of Claim; and (ii) the additional £70 said to have been added to each parking charge.

2. The Defendant respectfully seeks permission to rely on the authorities identified below. They concern points of law and the proper analysis of the Claimant's pleaded case and quantum. The Defendant does not seek to introduce a new factual case.

3. The Defendant's primary case remains that he was an authorised resident parker in a secure residential car park, using the genuine resident permit associated with the bay. The permit was partially obscured, but the Defendant disputes that this established an absence of a valid permit or authority.

B. Inadequate Particulars of Claim

4. The Particulars plead only that parking charges were issued to the vehicle at 'one or more locations'; that the PCNs were issued between DATE 1 and DATE 2 on land managed by the Claimant; and that the vehicle was parked 'in breach of the Terms on C's signs'. They claim £X,XXX as 'the total of the PCNs'.

5. The Particulars do not identify: (a) the site; (b) that seven separate PCNs are claimed; (c) the seven individual dates; (d) the contractual term said to have been breached or the conduct constituting each alleged breach; or (e) how £X,XXX is calculated. Those matters were supplied only later in the Claimant's witness evidence.

6. In Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (County Court appeal), the court held that a parking pleading which merely asserted breach of displayed terms was wholly inadequate where it did not identify the contractual term said to have been breached and how it was breached. The court further rejected the proposition that pre-action material could cure inadequate pleadings: the issues are defined by the pleadings.

7. Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (County Court appeal, HHJ Murch, 15 August 2023) is relied upon to the same general effect: a parking claimant must plead sufficient facts to identify the contractual basis and breach relied upon; later material should not be used to construct a materially different case that was not properly pleaded.

8. The same principle is supported at High Court level by Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC). Jefford J held that CPR 16.4 requires a concise statement of the facts relied upon and that contractual pleadings must identify the contract and relevant terms sufficiently for the defendant and the court to know the case being advanced. At [59]-[61], the Court rejected the suggestion that the burden should pass to the defendant to 'tease out' the claimant's case from other material.

9. The Defendant therefore respectfully invites the Court to consider whether the pleaded case is sufficiently particularised to permit the Claimant to recover seven separate contractual charges and the global sum claimed. If the Court considers the deficiencies sufficiently serious, the Defendant invites the Court to exercise its case-management powers under CPR 3.4. Alternatively, the Court is invited to confine the Claimant to the case actually pleaded and to give the deficiencies appropriate weight when deciding whether the Claimant has discharged the burden of proof.

C. The additional £70 per PCN

10. The Claimant's own witness statement states that the contractual parking charge was £100, but that a further £70 was later added to each PCN, increasing each sum to £170. The Claimant relies on signage stating only that enforcement action 'may incur additional costs' which will be added to the parking charge. The sign does not quantify £70.

11. The £X,XXX principal sum pleaded is therefore seven sums of £170. Yet the Particulars describe £X,XXX simply as 'the total of the PCNs' and do not identify that £490 of the pleaded principal consists of later additional charges.

12. The Competition and Markets Authority's Open Letter to Private Parking Operators dated 16 July 2026 is directly relevant to the fairness and transparency of such terms. At paragraphs 35-42, the CMA records concern about additional-fee terms that are unclear, insufficiently prominent or not properly incorporated. It specifically notes that an industry-code allowance of up to £70 does not itself create a legal basis for liability, and identifies as concerning terms which merely say that additional costs 'may' be incurred or fail to quantify the amount sought.

13. The Defendant relies on sections 62 and 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and respectfully reminds the Court of its duty under section 71 to consider the fairness of a consumer term where applicable. The Defendant submits that a vague, unquantified reference to costs which 'may' be incurred does not transparently establish contractual liability for a fixed £70 increase on every £100 charge.

14. Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson, G4QZ465V (Bradford County Court, 1 July 2020) is relied upon as persuasive authority only. The claim there was struck out as an abuse of process where an additional sum had been added to a parking charge. The Defendant recognises that it is a County Court decision and does not present it as binding authority.

15. Accordingly, even if the Court finds one or more underlying £100 parking charges payable, the Defendant respectfully submits that the additional £70 per PCN has not been shown to be contractually due, fair or transparent and should be disallowed. On seven PCNs, that element alone is £490.

D. Residential context and the substantive dispute

16. The procedural and quantum issues above are independent of the Defendant's substantive case. The car park was a secure residential car park accessed using the residential access equipment. The Claimant's own photographs show a resident permit, albeit partially obscured, and the Defendant's served evidence addresses the connection between the tenancy, permit and bay.

17. The Claimant's witness statement says it manages the land so that it can be used 'fairly for all motorists'. The Defendant submits that the factual context is materially narrower: this was not a public pay-and-display car park open generally to motorists, but a controlled residential car park. That context is relevant when assessing the purpose of the permit scheme and the proportionality and credibility of the Claimant's assertion that an authorised resident displaying the genuine permit should be treated as parking 'without a valid permit or authority'.

18. The Defendant therefore respectfully invites the Court, in order: (i) to consider the adequacy of the Particulars and the appropriate consequence; (ii) if the substantive claim is determined, to dismiss it because the Claimant has not proved that the Defendant lacked a valid permit or authority; and (iii) in any event, if any £100 charges are found payable, to disallow the additional £70 per PCN.

Coupon-mad

 I think keeping it concise is probably the best step forward.

Agreed. Send it this week, by email.

That's very good indeed but don't include the line asking for permission because you'll get a reply saying you must fill in an application and pay a three figure fee.

Instead, say that the CMA's news when stepping in to investigate the private parking sector just three weeks ago has clarified matters and it is imperative the judge considers fairness in this case against the background of the consumer protection regulator's Open Letter.

Where you talk about Excel v Wilkinson, add this extra bit:

The Defendant recognises that it is a County Court decision and does not present it as binding authority, however this detailed judgment was intended to clarify the issue of improper double recovery of costs already covered by the PCN, and was handed down by Her Honour Judge Jackson just weeks before she was appointed as a specialist High Court Judge.

1505grandad

"1. This supplementary skeleton is intended to assist the Court on two (discrete) legal issues which are additional to, ………."

Just checking - should (that) be "distinct"?

2cattommy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82097058#Comment_82097058

Thank you very much for all of your help. It's been invaluable in navigating this fairly complex legal arguments during a stressful period. I will let you know how things play out for the day!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82097126#Comment_82097126

Thanks for checking, think either can be used.

2cattommy

I won!

The judge focused on the poor POC, images of signs from 2015 (6 years out of date), changing their argument from presence of a valid permit to visibility of the permit on the day which wasn’t mentioned in their witness statement (and accepting a valid permit was present).

The judge didn’t see my additional skeleton

Got £72 for claiming unreasonable behaviour (out of £500 claimed)

Coupon-mad

Brilliant news and very well done!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Did they send a hired legal rep?

2cattommy

They did - he was in a difficult position of defending their claim.

Coupon-mad

I bet! Did the judge make it fairly clear from the get-go, which way it was going?