Parking ticket court claim

Parkingrookie12

The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not identify the contractual term relied upon with sufficient clarity. Further, the Claimant has improperly added an additional £70 described as damages to the original Parking Charge. This sum is disputed and appears to amount to double recovery. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of the legal and contractual basis for this additional sum.

1. The Defendant admits being the registered keeper of the vehicle but does not admit that he was the driver. Liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. To the extent that the Claimant relies upon keeper liability, the Claimant is put to strict proof that every condition of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was satisfied.
2. The alleged breach is stated to be “Parked For Longer Than Permitted”. The Defendant does not admit that any binding contractual term was breached. The parking enforcement arrangements at this location were introduced shortly before the material date. 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 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, the terms applicable on 16 February 2026 and the signage displayed on that date.
3. To form a binding contract, the terms relied upon must have been sufficiently clear and prominent. The Defendant has obtained current photographs showing signs 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 not relied upon as proof of the precise condition of the site on the material date. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof of contemporaneous photographs and the terms actually displayed.
4. The Claimant is further put to strict proof that the terms relied upon were sufficiently clear, prominent and consistent to form the alleged contract, including the basis upon which a parking charge could arise.
5. The Claimant is also put to strict proof of its standing and authority from the landowner or lawful occupier to operate the scheme and bring proceedings in its own name, including the scope and duration of any such authority and the relevant site boundaries.
6. The Defendant also relies upon the fact that the enforcement arrangements were newly introduced. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any material change to the pre-existing parking arrangements was properly communicated to motorists, including compliance with any applicable requirements of the British Parking Association Code of Practice concerning material changes and temporary entrance notices.
7. The Claimant is required to establish the legitimate interest relied upon and adequate notice of the parking charge and the relevant contractual obligations. The Defendant distinguishes this case from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 because the Claimant must first establish that the relevant terms were properly communicated and formed part of any contract.
8. The additional £70 is expressly disputed. The Claimant is required to identify the contractual, statutory or other legal basis for this sum and provide a breakdown showing how it is said to have been incurred and recovered. The Defendant relies upon the principles concerning recovery of additional costs considered in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB).
9. Any claim based upon keeper liability is subject to the statutory limits in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Claimant is put to strict proof of compliance with the statutory requirements and the amount recoverable.
10. The Defendant seeks the fixed costs permitted under CPR 27.14 and reserves the right to rely upon any unreasonable conduct by the Claimant in relation to the additional sum claimed.
11. For the reasons above, the Defendant denies liability and invites the Court to dismiss the claim.

Coupon-mad

By not using any of the template defence, you've lost the crucial two mentions of HHJ Moloney whose early Beavis judgment kills the added £70 fakery.

Parkingrookie12

Thanks Coupon-mad. I understand what you mean. I was trying to incorporate the site-specific points about the new ANPR system and signage, but I can see I've removed the two important HHJ Moloney/Beavis references concerning the additional £70.

I'll put those back in and rework the defence around the current template, while keeping the Hereward-specific points about the 19 January go-live date and signage. I haven't submitted the defence yet, so I'll make sure they're included before filing.

Thanks for pointing that out

Parkingrookie12

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all. The Particulars of Claim are sparse and fail to provide sufficient detail of the contractual terms relied upon, the circumstances giving rise to the alleged contractual liability, or the basis upon which the additional £70 is claimed. The Defendant is therefore unable to plead fully to the Claimant's case without putting the Claimant to strict proof of the alleged contract and breach.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the material time. The Defendant does not admit that he was the driver. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the identity of the driver. In the alternative, if the Claimant seeks to rely upon keeper liability, the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

3. The Claimant alleges that the vehicle was “Parked For Longer Than Permitted”. The Defendant does not admit that the alleged contractual term was breached. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the precise contractual terms relied upon, the period of parking, the permitted period, and the circumstances in which the alleged charge became payable.

4. The Claimant is put to strict proof that a contractual offer was made to the driver, that the terms relied upon were sufficiently prominent and transparent, and that the driver had a fair opportunity to read and understand those terms before any contract was allegedly formed. The Defendant relies upon the Consumer Rights Act 2015, including the requirements for consumer contract terms to be transparent and prominent.

5. The Defendant further puts the Claimant to strict proof of the signage displayed at the location on the material date, including its wording, size, position, prominence and visibility from the point of entry. The Claimant must establish that the terms relied upon, including any term imposing a parking charge, were clearly communicated and capable of forming part of the alleged contract.

6. The parking enforcement arrangements at the location were newly introduced shortly before the material date. The Hereward Practice has confirmed in writing that the cameras and signs were in place and that the ANPR system went live on 19 January 2026. The alleged parking event occurred on 16 February 2026. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof of the date on which its enforcement scheme commenced, the terms applicable on the material date and the signage actually displayed at that time.

7. Where a material change is made to pre-existing parking arrangements which would not be immediately apparent to a motorist, the applicable British Parking Association Code of Practice contains requirements concerning additional temporary entrance notices. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any material change from the previous parking arrangements was properly communicated to motorists, including any applicable temporary entrance signage, and that the terms relied upon were adequately brought to the attention of drivers before the alleged contract was formed.

8. The Claimant is also put to strict proof of its standing and authority from the landowner or lawful occupier to operate the parking scheme and to bring proceedings in its own name. The Claimant must provide strict proof of the relevant landowner contract, its duration, the land covered by it, and the authority granted to the Claimant on the material date.

9. The Claimant is required to establish the legitimate interest relied upon and adequate notice of the parking charge. The Defendant distinguishes this case from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The Supreme Court's decision concerned a particular parking scheme where the charge was prominently displayed and the contractual terms were sufficiently brought to the driver's attention. The Claimant must first establish that the contractual terms relied upon were properly communicated and incorporated into any contract in this case.

10. The Claimant has added a further £70 to the original parking charge, described as damages or additional costs. This sum is expressly disputed. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the contractual, statutory or other legal basis for this additional sum. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to recover the same operational or enforcement costs twice.

11. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 98, 100, 193 and 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment of HHJ Moloney in that case concerning the costs of operating and enforcing a parking scheme. The Defendant also relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB), particularly paragraphs 419–428, concerning the attempted recovery of additional administrative costs. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the legal basis, contractual basis and calculation of the additional £70.

12. The Defendant has not been provided with evidence establishing that the additional £70 formed part of the contractual terms offered to motorists. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any sign or contractual term relied upon to establish liability for this additional sum. The Defendant submits that the additional sum amounts to an attempt at double recovery of costs already encompassed within the parking charge.

13. To the extent that the Claimant relies upon keeper liability, the Defendant relies upon the statutory provisions and limits contained within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Claimant is put to strict proof of compliance with every applicable statutory requirement and of the amount lawfully recoverable from a registered keeper.

14. The Defendant further relies upon CPR 27.14 concerning recoverable costs and reserves the right to draw the Court's attention to any unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, including the pursuit of an unsupported additional sum.

15. For the reasons stated above, the Defendant denies liability for the amount claimed and respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim.

I have tried to use the template as much as possible any more feedback would be appreciated

Coupon-mad

I'm not sure that'll fit into MCOL but try.

Parkingrookie12

Massive thanks to everyone on the MSE forum who’s helped me with this. Really appreciate all the advice and guidance — I’ve just submitted my defence. 👍