Parking ticket court claim

MrJenkinsEsq

r Code of Practice, clause 3.4 (Material changes, notices):

Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.

Announcement of ANPR being installed published Jan 19, 2026.

https://www.theherewardpractice.co.uk/news/anpr-system-being-installed

PCN date of 16th Feb 2026 is within that time.

MrJenkinsEsq

There is a big distinction between £60 rising to £100 and £100 discounted to £60. I expect the website is just poorly drafted. What does the NTK say? Would be very interesting if it says £60 increasing to £100.

Separately, is this sign still up?

MrJenkinsEsq

More sleuthing. Same GP Group, different surgey. Possibly the same defect at this surgery. Defeated claim based on no landowner authority.

https://www.lincsonline.co.uk/stamford/news/judge-overturns-gp-s-parking-fine-at-surgery-9470578/

Dr Babbs outlined to the court that Total Parking Solutions’s contract was with Lakeside Healthcare, but that Lakeside was neither the owner nor leaseholder of the surgery site until a lease contract was signed with the owners — two former colleagues of Dr Babbs — in February this year.

As a result, District Judge Falvey agreed that Total Parking Solutions had no legal authority to issue parking charge notices in the surgery car park before the signing of the lease this year.

TPS later ditched at that surgery.

https://www.lincsonline.co.uk/stamford/news/gps-change-parking-enforcer-to-prevent-patient-upsets-9479445/

A car park operator has been ditched by a town GP surgery in favour of a new operator.

Stamford Surgery has used Total Parking Solutions for two years to prevent people using its car parks for reasons other than medical appointments, collections and enquiries.

But in that time a great many patients received penalty charge notices because they either forgot to enter their vehicle registration on a surgery tablet, or because of problems with the system.

Parkingrookie12

Thanks for the advice. I'm not ignoring the questions, I've been trying to find out more information.

I've contacted the Hereward Practice directly to ask when the ANPR system was introduced, when it went live and when the parking terms/signage changed.

I also recently attended the pharmacy with my daughter and asked about registering my vehicle. I was told that the registration tablet had been removed because TPS are no longer managing the car park.

I'm still getting my head around the legal arguments, so any guidance on which points are worth concentrating on would be appreciated.

MrJenkinsEsq

The most important things are the signs from my point of view. Is the big welcome board in my reply still up and was it up at the time? If the TPS signs are still up then pictures of those would be great.

Parkingrookie12

Just been back there tonight before work so the welcome sign is still there and these are the signs the first one is by the entrance and the other is attached to a wall in the car park hope these help

MrJenkinsEsq

Three signs saying three different things. The practice's own welcome board reads "Car parking for patients of the surgery & customers of the pharmacy only" and states no time limit, no validation requirement, no charge and no operator.

The TPS entrance sign on the pole adds "Tablet validation required. Maximum stay 30 minutes" but never states that parking is free or whether payment is required, contrary to Code 3.1.2(b).

Only the terms sign inside the car park mentions £100, and that board is headed Lakeside Healthcare in its largest text with TPS confined to the footer.

All three restrict parking to patients and pharmacy customers, and validation is by tablet inside the surgery or pharmacy, so a non-patient has no route to comply. That reads as a prohibition, not an offer, and it is stated three times over. VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186 does not answer it: Lewison LJ said at [24] the case concerned permit holders who parked badly and was "not concerned with 'pure' trespassers". "Required to abide by" asserts an obligation rather than inviting agreement, supporting no offer. The word "validate" itself supports prohibition, it's confirmation of a right that already exists, not something on offer to all.

Where the signs diverge, s.69 CRA 2015 gives the driver the most favourable version, which is the practice's board. Code 3.1.5 NOTE 2 also requires signs on a site to be consistent in typeface, size, weight, colour and layout, and these are not. s.68 on transparency too.

Practical upshot, and quite sad really, the people chargeable here, if anyone, are the patients the scheme was installed to protect, who forget to validate, mistype or overstay. The commuters it was aimed at are outside the contract, and the fallback is trespass, where standing fails under Countryside Residential (North Thames) Ltd v Tugwell (2001) 81 P & CR 2 and damages are nominal.

First thoughts for a defence:

1. Maybe a landowner authority problem as in the news articles in previous reply
2. No offer, on any sign, to a non-patient/pharmacy customer
3. Mixed signage
4. Lakeside Healthcare is disclosed on the terms sign so TPS may not have the right to sue anyway
5. 4 month ANPR notice absent as in previous reply
6. Usual £70 add on nonsense
7. Beavis on proportionality

They have two postcodes. Must be a big company. 😀

Parkingrookie12

Hello all this is what I have come up with so far.

circumstances/issues I'm relying on are:

- TPS appears to have been introduced at the site in January 2026.

- The Hereward Practice published an announcement on 19 January 2026 saying an ANPR system was being installed and that TPS would manage it.

- Lakeside Healthcare has subsequently confirmed to me that TPS was introduced at the site in January 2026.

- I don't currently know the exact date enforcement commenced.

- The current TPS signs say the car park is for Medical Centre patients and Pharmacy customers only, require the vehicle registration to be entered into a tablet, and state a maximum stay of 30 minutes.

- The practice's own parking information appears to give the patient/pharmacy-only restriction but doesn't contain the same detailed validation, time-limit and charge information.

- I have photographs of the current signs, but obviously can't say they prove exactly what was displayed in February 2026.

- I therefore intend to put TPS to strict proof of the signage and terms actually displayed on the two dates.

- I also intend to ask TPS to prove its authority from the landowner/lawful occupier and the scope of that authority.

- Both claims include an additional £70 described as damages, which I intend to challenge and ask TPS to explain the legal/contractual basis for.

- I have not relied on a false denial of driving. The driver was a family member, so I am not going to state that I was not the driver. The claim alleges I was the driver and alternatively the keeper, so my draft requires TPS to prove the basis of liability and, if relying on POFA, compliance with POFA.

I've drafted the following for Claim

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum, and puts the Claimant to strict proof.

2. The Particulars of Claim allege that the Defendant was the driver and, alternatively, the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant does not admit the allegation that he was the driver and requires the Claimant to prove the basis upon which liability is said to arise.

3. To the extent that the Claimant relies upon keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant is required to prove that every statutory condition was satisfied, including the requirements concerning the Notice to Keeper and the sum recoverable.

4. The alleged breach is stated to be “Parked For Longer Than Permitted”. The Claimant is required to prove the contractual term relied upon, the applicable permitted period, the actual period of parking and how the alleged breach was established and calculated.

5. The parking enforcement arrangements at this location were newly introduced shortly before the alleged incident. The Hereward Practice announced on 19 January 2026 that an ANPR system was being installed and that Total Parking Solutions would manage it. Lakeside Healthcare has subsequently confirmed to the Defendant that TPS was introduced at the site in January 2026. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the date enforcement commenced and the terms and signage applying on the material date.

6. The Defendant has obtained photographs of the site showing signage stating that the car park is for Medical Centre patients and Pharmacy customers only, that vehicle registration must be entered into a tablet and that the maximum stay is 30 minutes. These photographs are current and are not relied upon as proof of the precise condition of the site on the material date. The Claimant is therefore required to prove the signage and terms actually displayed at that time.

7. The practice's own parking information states that parking is for surgery patients and pharmacy customers, whereas the TPS signage introduces additional requirements including tablet validation, a 30-minute maximum stay and a parking charge. The Claimant is required to prove that the contractual terms relied upon were sufficiently clear, prominent and consistent to form the alleged contract.

8. In particular, the Claimant is required to establish what contractual licence, if any, was offered to a person who was not visiting the Medical Centre or pharmacy, and how the alleged parking charge could arise from the terms displayed at the entrance.

9. The Claimant is also put to strict proof that any material change to the pre-existing parking arrangements was properly communicated, including compliance with any applicable requirements of the British Parking Association Code of Practice concerning material changes and temporary entrance notices.

10. The Claimant is required to prove that it had sufficient authority from the landowner or lawful occupier to operate the parking scheme at this location and to issue proceedings in its own name, including the scope and duration of any such authority and the relevant site boundaries.

11. The Particulars of Claim appear to include an additional £70 described as damages. The Defendant disputes this additional sum and requires the Claimant to identify the contractual, statutory or other legal basis for it, together with a breakdown showing how it is said to have been incurred and recovered.

12. Interest and any claimed costs are not admitted. Any costs are subject to the applicable provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules.

13. For the reasons above, the Defendant denies liability and invites the Court to dismiss the claim.

1505grandad

Just wondering why you have not used the Template Defence as advised a couple of times in August?

Parkingrookie12

Thanks. I have been working from the template but adapted it because the POC specifically alleges "Parked For Longer Than Permitted", and there are some site-specific issues I wanted to address, particularly the recent introduction of ANPR, the signage/terms and the landowner authority.

I haven't submitted it yet — I've posted the draft here to get feedback before filing. If I've gone too far from the current template, I'm happy to revise it.