Late Appeal, letter before action

Le_Kirk

Suggest you junk AI and just use the template defence, which will fit into the box on MCOL.

Nosy

DEFENCE STATEMENT

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'. 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.
3. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of £260.78, or any sum at all. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question on 9 April 2026.
4. The Claimant alleges a 94‑minute stay at McDonald’s Shirley Road. The occupants were genuine paying customers, with the first transaction completed 14 minutes after arrival. Due to exceptional service delays, food was not provided for around 25 minutes after ordering, meaning almost 40 minutes of the 60‑minute limit elapsed before the meal was received. The contract was frustrated by delays entirely within the landowner’s control, making it impossible to consume a meal and safely manage three young children within the remaining time.
5. The Defendant denies that the 1‑hour restriction or other terms were prominently displayed at dusk, and adequate notice was not provided. Under the ATA Code of Practice, operators must allow reasonable grace periods for entry, reading signs, and exit. When combined with the restaurant’s delays, the total duration of the stay was reasonable and necessary. The Claimant has also added an unlawful £70 to the £100 maximum PCN, amounting to double recovery and abuse of process, contrary to POFA and the principles in ParkingEye v Beavis.
6. The Claimant ignored the Defendant’s detailed Letter Before Claim response and failed to provide requested evidence (ANPR images, signage logs, landowner authority), breaching the Pre‑Action Protocol for Debt Claims. The Defendant therefore denies liability for the sum claimed or any sum at all.
7. 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.
8. 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).
9. 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.
10. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 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'.
11. Attention is further drawn to 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 Court of Appeal) 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.
12. 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.
13. 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))'.

The Defendant respectfully requests the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Coupon-mad

No.

Use the template defence please.

AI is shockingly bad at this. Stop using it.

Nosy

the last post from 08:04pmm i used the template from post 2 of this link

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-suggestion-nb-ultimately-your-choice-of-defence-wording-is-your-own

below is final draft - what do you think? (although i have not said i was the driver i have just confirmed RK again. i can't find the NTK for pofa compliance)

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 allegations are vague and liability is denied. The Claimant’s delay in bringing proceedings has made retrieving contemporaneous evidence difficult and is highly prejudicial. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to £260.78, or any sum, but it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle on 9 April 2026.
3. The Claimant alleges a 94‑minute stay at McDonald’s Shirley Road. The occupants were genuine paying customers; the first transaction occurred 14 minutes after arrival. Severe service delays meant food was not provided for around 25 minutes after ordering, leaving almost 40 minutes of the 60‑minute limit elapsed before the meal began. These delays, entirely within the landowner’s control, frustrated any contract and made it impossible to consume a meal and manage three young children within the remaining time.
4. The Defendant denies that the 1‑hour limit or other terms were prominently displayed at dusk. The ATA Code of Practice requires reasonable grace periods for entry, reading signs, and exit. Combined with the restaurant’s delays, the total stay was reasonable. The Claimant has also added an unlawful £70 to the £100 maximum PCN, amounting to double recovery and abuse of process, contrary to POFA and the principles in Beavis.
5. The Claimant ignored the Defendant’s detailed Letter Before Claim response and failed to provide requested evidence (ANPR images, signage logs, landowner authority), breaching the Pre‑Action Protocol for Debt Claims. Liability for the sum claimed is denied.
6. 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.
7. 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).
8. 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.
9. 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.

10 .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'.

11. 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.

12. 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

"the last post from 08:04pmm i used the template from post 2 of this link"

No you didn't. But you have now (compare para 1, I looked for "HHJ Moloney" and it was missing at 8.04pm in that post).

Remove this from p2 if the parking event was only in April. They haven't delayed litigation:

"The Claimant’s delay in bringing proceedings has made retrieving contemporaneous evidence difficult and is highly prejudicial."

Remove this from p4 as it's repetition:

"The Claimant has also added an unlawful £70 to the £100 maximum PCN, amounting to double recovery and abuse of process, contrary to POFA and the principles in Beavis."

Looks good to go, after those tweaks. 🙂