Residential parking in allocated bay - Court Claim received

is it a possibility that the court will strike the case out and I won't actually have to go to court? Or at this point is it a given that I'll have a court hearing? A bit nervous as a foreigner to appear in court without representation (twice, as my boyfriend is fighting them too...).

It is possible that the court might strike out a claim, yes.

And possible that the claimant might discontinue. We do see cases discontinued, when robustly defended.

But many proceed to a hearing (where we see people here win, 99% of the time) so you must proceed on the assumption that there will be a hearing for you and your boyfriend. It is TERRIBLE that your boyfriend is also fighting this menace, and I think you should also mention that in your defence, that:

This claimant is using predatory practices and targeting residents to the extent that you are aware of others also having to fight these charges, despite the residents having primacy of contract.

I like your defence. I would say 2.4 needs editing as it is written to say 'you' which should be changed to match the rest of the defence, i.e. 'the Claimant'.

based on the story (sticker falling on the floor, being sick at the time, no contract and no mention of them on my lease), do I have any chance of the court dismissing it without a hearing?

Probably not; strike-outs are rare, and normally due to poorly-worded claims, not the defence.

I assume if I counterclaim than there is a higher chance of this actually ending up in court (a hearing), and their solicitor showing up (as they have more of a financial interest)?

Yes, and counter-claims are not easy to write (there is no template). So you might prefer just to defend.

Also, is it best to avoid admitting I was the driver? My current defense relies on the fact that I was unwell at the time I parked my car, which implies that I was driving it. Am I better off admitting this and rely on the illness as a circumstance, or is it always best to NOT admit if you were the driver?

I would remove the bit about being unwell, and would instead have a section putting the claimant to strict proof of their full compliance with the POFA, stating that the driver has not been evidenced and there is no lawful obligation upon a keeper to give up the name of the driver to a private parking firm.

Not wanting to be a wet blanket, but you don't have a lease - your landlord does. You have a tenancy agreement. I am assuming this from your posts.

Your landlord can not confer rights to their tenant that are not allowed in their lease, nor can they override and restrictive clauses. So sight of the lease would help you.

You mention Beavis, which does have some benefits for motorists in amongst the victory for PPCs. But since courts generally assume it is a PPCS winner and judges have almost certainly not read the bit you are relying on re penalties, you should quote the relevant paragraphs.

I would revisit your defence to ensure that you are not inferring that you have a lease.
Furthermore, you should claim some form of natural curtailment of your freedom to enjoy a normal residency as if you wanted to give a visitor your parking space, there appears to be no scheme to allow you to do this.