Euro Car Parks 2023 Claim - Full Draft Defence Review

britishme91

Hi everyone, I received a court claim from Euro Car Parks for an historic event dating back to 2023. I have successfully completed my online AOS. Please could you review my 10-paragraph draft defense below before I submit it to the court?

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 Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question. The allegation relates to an historic parking event dating back to 2023. Due to the significant passage of time (nearly three years), the Defendant cannot reasonably recall who was operating the vehicle on the material date and time. The Claimant is put to strict proof to demonstrate the identity of the driver at the material time, as the Claimant cannot assume that the Registered Keeper was the driver.

3. The Claimant has stated in their Particulars of Claim that they are pursuing the Defendant as the keeper pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA"). The Defendant denies that the Claimant has complied with the strict, mandatory statutory requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 necessary to transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof to demonstrate full compliance with all conditions of PoFA Schedule 4, including but not limited to:

(a) Giving notice to the keeper within the strict relevant period under Paragraph 9(4) or 9(5).

(b) Specifying the exact period of parking rather than merely providing entry and exit automatic number-plate recognition (ANPR) camera timestamps.

(c) Proving that a clear, readable, and legally binding contract was prominently displayed at the material time in 2023, which is denied.

In the absence of strict PoFA compliance, there is no lawful basis to hold the Registered Keeper liable for this claim.

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))'.

1505grandad

Para 3 is not relevant as you have obviously admitted to being driver in para 2.

Coupon-mad

Remove the superfluous:

'in question'

'(nearly three years),'

and the second use of 'at the material time,'

As it's Euro Car Parks I'd remove para 10 from the Template Defence (which is optional), and instead add some wording going for the jugular, as we hope you saw this in about the CMA breathing down ECP's neck in last week's BBC news articles?

Current Consumer Law Investigation (Opened July 2026)

• Petrol station ticketing: Investigating whether it is fair to issue parking charges to motorists who are actively queuing for or using fuel pumps and car washes. [1]
• Appeals scrutiny: Evaluating the legality and fairness of the company's internal appeals processes across both petrol stations and general car parks. [1]

Show us the POC but cover your VRM.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82082667#Comment_82082667

They haven't…

1505grandad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82082793#Comment_82082793

Oops - apologies for misread.

britishme91

Sorry I’m new to all this. So if I get rid of para 3 and 10 then will it be ok to proceed with everything else?

Gr1pr

No, you need a paragraph 3, but can add a new substitute paragraph 10

1505grandad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82083571#Comment_82083571

Yes apologies I misread your para 3 which you should keep as is.

britishme91

I have updated everything. Is this ok and ready to send?

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, PD16 paragraphs 3 and 7, failing to state all facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action. Further, the Claimant has improperly added £70 to the original Parking Charge. This additional sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery. The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that the parking charge itself covered the costs of operating and enforcing the parking scheme. Those same costs cannot lawfully be recovered twice. Interest on the additional sum should also be disallowed. The exaggerated claim includes sums that the Defendant contends are irrecoverable, and the Court is invited to exercise its case management powers accordingly.

2. The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question. The allegation relates to an historic parking event dating back to 2023. Due to the significant passage of time (nearly three years), the Defendant cannot reasonably recall who was operating the vehicle on the material date and time. The Claimant is put to strict proof to demonstrate the identity of the driver at the material time, as the Claimant cannot assume that the Registered Keeper was the driver.

3.The Claimant has stated in their Particulars of Claim that they are pursuing the Defendant as the keeper pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA"). The Defendant denies that the Claimant has complied with the strict, mandatory statutory requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 necessary to transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof to demonstrate full compliance with all conditions of PoFA Schedule 4, including but not limited to:

(a) Giving notice to the keeper within the strict relevant period under Paragraph 9(4) or 9(5).

(b) Specifying the exact period of parking rather than merely providing entry and exit automatic number-plate recognition (ANPR) camera timestamps.

(c) Proving that a clear, readable, and legally binding contract was prominently displayed at the material time in 2023, which is denied.

In the absence of strict PoFA compliance, there is no lawful basis to hold the Registered Keeper liable for this claim.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that any contractual term was breached. To form a legally binding contract there must be a clear offer, acceptance and consideration. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires contractual terms and consumer notices to be fair and transparent. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is put to strict proof that the signage in place at the material time was sufficiently clear, prominent and capable of creating a legally binding contract. The Defendant also requires the Claimant to produce contemporaneous photographs of the signage as it appeared on the date of the alleged contravention.

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 respectfully requests that, if the claim is dismissed or discontinued, the Court considers whether the Claimant has acted unreasonably pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g). The Claimant has pursued a claim including an additional £70 over and above the original parking charge, despite the Defendant’s contention that such additional sums are not recoverable in law. The Defendant has been put to unnecessary time and expense in researching the applicable law, preparing this Defence and complying with the Court’s directions. Should the Court find that the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in bringing or continuing these proceedings, the Defendant respectfully asks the Court to exercise its discretion to award the Defendant their costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g).