Irrelevant Defences and How To Avoid Them

Based on direct experience of appearing in dozens of small claims parking case hearings, I believe i can say with some authority what is likely to work, and what isn't. We see on these forums many examples of completely irrelevant defence points posted by OPs who have simply cut and pasted an out-of-date template from somewhere, and sometimes unfortunately well-meaning but wrong advice from some of the regulars here, who have no real world experience of arguing before a Judge.

This non-exhaustive list will help posters to avoid using defences which are unlikely to advance their case, and which are more likely to turn the Judge against them.

No loss to PPC: There doesn't have to be any more, since the Supreme Court ruling in Parking Eye v Beavis. All they have to show is that there is a legitimate interest in enforcing the rules of the car park. So don't use phrases like 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' (GPEOL), that's a guaranteed loser. Also, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR) is a dead duck following that Beavis ruling.

Not the Driver: The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) gave PPCs the ability to pursue vehicle keepers if the driver's indentity is not known. In order to do so, their paperwork must comply with the strict wording of that legislation. If it does, then it doesn't matter whether you were driving or not, they can claim against you. If it does not (and you need to go through it with a fine toothcomb) AND you can show that you weren't driving, you can argue that they have no basis for keeper liability, and can only pursue the driver.

No Planning Permission for Signage: Many PPCs erect signage without first obtaining permission from the Council to do so. But that is only relevant if you can show evidence that the Council has commenced enforcement action against the PPC, then you could plead the illegality defence. Otherwise, a Judge is unlikely to consider this point.

PPC has previously been suspended from DVLA data access: So what. That is not relevant to your case.

Complaints have been lodged against their solicitors: Again, so what. That won't affect your case.

No Letter Before Claim / Pre-action Protocols not followed: At worst, the PPC will get a slapped wrist from the Judge. But it won't be fatal to their case.

Distinguishing your case from Beavis: The fact that Parking Eye paid £1,000 a week to operate in that case makes no difference at all, the arrangements between landowner and PPC are not relevant, as has been ruled by the higher courts. You need to concentrate on things that make your case substantially different, otherwise you're unlikely to win.

I didn't see the signs: Unless you can demonstrate, with evidence, that the signage in the car park was obscured, printed in a tiny font, high up on poles or otherwise unreadable, this is a rubbish argument. The signs are there to be seen, and you should have seen them.

I can't afford to pay: This cuts no ice with Judges, and is not a reason for dismissing the claim. If Judgment is given against you, you can agree a monthly payment plan with the Claimant, but that's discretionary.