Court Claim - Elms Legal & Excel Parking

Snacker

Either these parking firms all keep in touch or it's just the season for serving court papers, because within a couple of weeks of my other claim I've now received one from Elms Legal acting for Excel Parking 😂

I've done the AOS so will be starting the defence soon, but I have a few questions.

1. Is paragraph 1 of the template defence still applicable here? The Particulars of Claim (which I'll post below) for this one seem to be much more specific than for my last one, so I'm unsure whether or not to leave it out.
2. I haven't yet confirmed or denied that I'm the driver. Is there any advantage to avoiding doing so?
3. Is there any point in trying to argue mitigating circumstances, e.g. the defendant was out shopping with someone with rheumatoid arthritis, they suffered quite a severe flare-up and needed a lot of assistance to get back to the vehicle, resulting in the 25 minute overstay, or would that just be deemed irrelevant?
4. In the Particulars of Claim there's an error in the sentence 'The defendant's vehicle XXXXX was identified in the Copeland Street on the 31/05/2025'. Is their omission of the words 'car park' (thus them simply stating that the vehicle was parked on Copeland Street, which they have zero authority over) of any significance in my favour?

Snacker

Particulars of Claim

Le_Kirk

Paragraph #1 of the current template defence is always relevant, it is paragraphs #2 and #3 that need your input. The end of paragraph #2 needs to be "keeper and driver" or "keeper and not driver" depending upon your situation. Was a blue badge involved? Not essential but makes it easier to prove that one or more occupants of the vehicle needed more time due to their medical condition. You could cite the Equality Act which requires parking operators to allow more time for those with impaired mobility.

Castle

There's more than one "Copeland Street".

Snacker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82103925#Comment_82103925

Ok, thanks. No blue badge involved although the person in question has been formally diagnosed and on prescribed treatment for it for several years.

Snacker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82103935#Comment_82103935

Yeah that's a good point. No further location details are mentioned.

Snacker

Ok so I've spent quite a while reading through other peoples' defences and have got some ideas and a first draft, but I'm still unsure how to proceed.

Am I right in thinking that admitting who was driving is only relevant if there's a question of the NTK being POFA compliant? As it happens, my NTK wasn't actually POFA compliant because it arrived the day after the cut-off time, although I don't know how I could prove that and therefore if it's even worth including.

Does it help me that the POC on the claim form is vague about the location of the alleged breach if that location has already been clearly stated on the NTK?

Is the arthritis factor worth including if there was no blue badge involved?

Coupon-mad

Use the replacement para 10 suggested in the CEL claim that comes up when you search the forum for the word Leagrave.

That para 10 covers the new (July) CMA investigation and the non-specified location.

Snacker

That's great, thanks. My defence is almost finished, I'm just not sure of what to put in paragraph 3. If I go with the arthritis thing or talk about issues with the signage (of which there were arguably some) then does that admission of my knowledge of the location and circumstances undermine the part of my defence that refers to the vague location in the POC?

Coupon-mad

Not really. I would go into detail because Excel cases normally go to hearings, so you want a consistent story from the start.

Snacker

Could someone critique my defence please?

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'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all.

3. Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late.
The car park signage was sparsely placed and the terms and conditions impossible to read from a vehicle when entering the car park, the sign closest to the entrance being partially obscured by vegetation (of which I have photographic evidence).

3.1 The Defendant was accompanied by a person diagnosed with and receiving treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, who suffered a sudden and severe flare-up of their condition shortly before expiry of the purchased parking duration. They required significant assistance to return to the vehicle, resulting in an unexpected delay of around 25 minutes. The Equality Act requires parking operators to allow more time for those with impaired mobility.

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 ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (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 deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby 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))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. It is worth the judge noting that, In July 2026, the UK consumer protection law Regulator - the Competition and Markets Authority ('the CMA') - has weighed in. The CMA has just published open letters to the parking industry and government on what they believe are actions that potentially breach consumer law:

Open letter to private parking operators

10.1. Paragraph 28 requires Operators to ensure that all substantive correspondence sent to consumers directs them to the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice ('the CoP') in order to allow consumers to make better informed decisions on whether to pay, ignore or dispute a PCN. 'Substantive correspondence' includes the Notice to Keeper ('NTK') which in the extant case, fails to direct the consumer to the CoP. The CMA consider that this is a failure to provide material information, ref: section 227(2) of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.

10.1.2. The same criticism - a failure to provide material information - can also be made of the NTK's failure to describe the circumstances in which the requirement to pay the parking charges arose. This is equally true of the woeful POC, which fails to particularise the alleged breach or the term, and nor does it properly identify the private land location.

10.2. With the CMA's Open Letter in mind, the Defendant avers that there is a lack of good faith in this Claimant (led by a solicitor and legal team) continuing to churn out boilerplate POC followed (as ever) by a premature, prolix Witness Statement, which this Defendant will not be intimidated by. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums and template statements of case which fail to comply with Part 16 are good reasons for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.