Hi. I've now received the revised particulars of claim and copied and pasted it below. It is strange because it doesn't give full details of the signage which said that customers could park there for 90 mins, nor any details of how they believe I contravened the terms and conditions. It also says I am the registered keeper, which is not true. I was just the driver but not the registered keeper, and I did say I was the driver very early on when my spouse (who is the registered keeper) received the penalty notice, and I did appeal but the appeal was ignored. They've also misspelt New Malden (not New Maldon). My defence is that I was a customer and stayed for less than 90 mins so no breach. They will argue that I was not a customer because the store was closed, but how can you know this before you enter the car park? Once you enter as a customer, you have 90 mins to exit, which I did.
AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
These Amended Particulars of Claim are filed and served in accordance with the Court Order
of District Judge Jacobs dated 27/05/2026.
Parties
1. The Claimant is a Company that offers private car park management services to private
landowners; primarily to manage the way in which motorists are permitted to park whilst on their private land. At all material times, the Claimant was accredited by the
Accredited Trade Association ("ATA") known as the British Parking Association
("BPA"). The BPA has a Code of Practice ("Code") that its members are expected to
adhere to, or otherwise they face potential sanctions. The Claimant operates in
accordance with the Code.
2. The Defendant is the recipient of a parking charge ("the Charge") issued by the
Claimant.
Background
3. The details of the Charge issued at to the Defendant's vehicle with the registration mark
of xxxx ("the Vehicle") at (768) Krispy Kreme New Maldon, New Maldon,
KT3 4NA ("the Land") are as follows: -
Charge No.
AB30311849
Contravention Date
24/08/2024
Issue Date
28/08/2024
Reason For Issue
Unauthorised Parking
Landowner Authority
4. At the time the Charge was issued, the Claimant was instructed by the owner of the
Land ("Landowner") to manage parking on the Land.
Contract & Breach
5. The Claimant was prominently displaying signs on the Land stipulating the Terms and
Conditions of parking (“Terms”) at the time the Charge was issued. The signs formed
the basis of the Contract with the driver of the Vehicle and contained the following
terms:-
-
"Private Property - No Unauthorised Parking"
"TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE APPLY AT ALL TIMES. PLEASE READ THIS SIGN
CARFULLY."
"Motorists visiting this car park are entering into contractual agreement and agree to comply
with the terms and conditions of use and also accept liability to pay the parking charge if they
fail to comply with."
6. The following term made it clear that a £100 parking charge would be payable in those
circumstances: -
"If you breach any of the above terms and conditions of use you will be charged: £100".
7. By parking the Vehicle on the Land in the manner described herein, the driver accepted
the Terms of the Contract by way of conduct, with the 'parking service' being the
consideration ("Contract"). The driver subsequently breached the Terms in failing to purchase a suitable tariff payment for their vehicle registration mark at the material
time.
8. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") the "relevant obligation" arose under the terms of a "relevant contract". The
"relevant contract" was between the driver and the Claimant, who was authorised by
the Landowner to enter into a contract with the driver, requiring payment in respect of
the parking of the Vehicle on the Land.
Defendant's Liability
9. In order to issue the Charge, the Claimant applied to the DVLA for the details of the
Registered Keeper of the Vehicle to send notices compliant with Schedule 4 of POFA.
10. Pursuant to paragraph 4 of POFA, the Claimant has the right to recover the Charge from the 'Keeper'. Paragraph 1 of POFA clarifies that the Registered Keeper is presumed to
be the 'Keeper' unless proven otherwise.
11. The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle and is therefore presumed to be
the 'Keeper' for the purposes of POFA.
12. Upon receipt of those details, Notice is sent to the Keeper via the post in accordance
with Section 9 of Schedule 4 of POFA.
13. For the sake of completeness, the Claimant relies on Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 9 of POFA.
14. As outlined in paragraph 12 above, the Parking Charge was issued to the Defendant via
post, as permitted within section 9.
15. The Parking Charge to the Registered Keeper was issued within the required 14-day
period under Paragraph 9(5).
16. The Parking Charge included all mandatory information under Paragraph 9(2),
including:-
i. The vehicle registration and relevant incident details (9(2)(a)-(c));
ii. The total amount due (9(2)(d));
iii. A statement that the operator does not know the driver's name and
address and an invitation for the keeper to provide this (9(2)(e)-(f));
iv. A warning that the keeper may be liable if the driver is not named within
28 days (9(2)(f));
v. The date of issue (9(2)(g));
vi. Instructions for payment and contact details (9(2)(h)-(i)).
17. The Parking Charge was served by post and was presumed delivered under POFA
Paragraph 9(6).
18. As the driver was not named within the required time and all other statutory
requirements were satisfied, the Claimant is entitled to pursue the Keeper under
Paragraph 4(6) of POFA.
19. Pursuant to paragraph 4 of POFA, the Claimant has the right to recover the Charge from
the 'Keeper'. Paragraph 1 of POFA clarifies that the Registered Keeper is presumed to
be the 'Keeper' unless proven otherwise.
20. The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle and is therefore presumed to be
the 'Keeper' for the purposes of POFA.
21. A POFA compliant Notice of Keeper was therefore sent to the Defendant at the address
supplied by the DVLA, providing the Defendant the opportunity to pay, appeal or
nominate the driver (if it was not them). None of which were done.
Pre-Action Conduct
22. As a result of non-payment, the Claimant instructed Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited
to send further letters to the Defendant to prompt payment. As the matter could not be
resolved, the Claimant instructed DCB Legal Ltd to send a Letter of Claim to the
Defendant.
23. The Claimant subsequently issued Court proceedings as a last resort to recover the
monies.
Amount Claimed
24. The Claimant seeks the total sum of £270.52, broken down as follows: -
Charge
Contractual Costs
£100.00
£70.00
Interest
£15.52
Court Fee
£35.00
Legal Representative Fixed Costs
£50.00
25. The Contractual Costs are claimed pursuant to the Contract which states: -
"The charge must be paid with 28 days and will be reduced if it is paid within 14 days of issue.
Should it remain unpaid at this point further charges may accrue"
26. Interest is claimed pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a standard
rate of 8% per annum above base rate until Judgment or sooner payment, or for such
period as the Court sees fit.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS: -
i.
Charge - £100.00
ii.
Contractual Costs £70.00
-
iii.
Interest - £15.52
iv.
Court Fee - £35.00
V.
Legal Representative Fixed Costs - £50.00
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Amended Particulars of Claim are true
and I am duly authorised to sign on the Claimant's behalf. I understand that proceedings for
contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false
statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed
Name: David John Croot
Position: Solicitor
Dated: 05/06/2026
Address for service of documents:
DCB Legal Ltd
Direct House
Greenwood Drive
Manor Park
Runcorn
WA7 1UG