Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: robbieuk on April 29, 2026, 09:52:59 am
-
This defence is precisely the one has been struck out by the courts because it's a boilerplate/template defence, all it does is moan about the process, and does not address anything specific to your case.
My advice is to submit a proper and specific defence which addresses the actual issues, not just the process, although you can include a point about the Particulars of Claim being too vague of course.
For example, if the notice is not compliant with PoFA 2012 then the defence should say this, and why, and that the driver has not been identified and therefore the liability can not be passed to the registered keeper. If it's relevant that time in the car park was spent searching for a space to park, this is not parking, but I sense that from your initial comments this would still result in an underpayment because the driver didn't spend an hour looking for a space.
-
Ok, so I found my friend’s post where she had issues with Britannia Parking in Basildon. She paid for two days of parking but Britannia Parking claimed she only paid one day for shorter period and did not pay for a second day. Unlike us, she named a driver, which made her situation worse as far as I understand.
She used the following defence but is it one of the drafts defences that you mentioned in other post that was rejected by court?
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
Britannia Parking Group Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3(1);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.
5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. 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:
Date:
Also, to reconfirm that we never named a driver in our case. Also one of the comments suggested that NTK is not POFA compliant so there cannot be any keeper liability? Should we just use this in defence or add it to the defence shown above?
-
So far I acknowledged the claim online and that gives me extra time to prepare defence. As soon as I have something drafted I will share here to look at it :)
-
I have tried responding to their Letter of Claim online but the system would not accept it and it remained unanswered.
Yesterday we have received a court claim from BW Legal which was issued on 19th August so still have time to prepare a decent defence.
Claim is against a registered keeper and should this form one of the main points in defence seeing their NTK was not Pofa compliant with no keeper responsibility?
Claim form attached here - https://ibb.co/DDjByNwq
-
Thank you. So as long as the keeper does not disclose the driver, then the fine would not be enforcable? 🤔
-
The NtK is not POFA compliant so there cannot be any keeper liability.
-
I have tried to respond to a letter of claim nevertheless to state that I can’t fully respond without having had an original pcn however their system would not accept it online and asked to message them on live chat instead. I left it at that point.
Britannia Parking has eventually responded to a subject access request. Even though I just asked for the original pcn, they have sent me a whole bunch of documents including pcn. This is the link for original pcn - https://ibb.co/Nz5W8qh
https://ibb.co/gZFNhK6Z
Their notes that they sent with subject access request show 1 hour payment received but that does not cover full stay - “ Doesn't cover stay -Paybyphone 100/03/2026 12:07:42 03/03/2026 13:07:42 1hr 0min 0sec 03/03/2026 12:07:48”
Car park was entered 11:45 and left 13:10 according to pcn.
-
No, there is no reason not to respond to the Letter of Claim if you are going to defend this, the time limit only comes with the county court claim which won’t be immediate anyway.
-
I am sending a subject access request today.
If it takes a long time to arrive, should I then later contact BWLegal requesting more time to reply to a Letter of Claim because of subject access request?
-
You should submit a Subject Access Request to the parking operator specifically asking for the original PCN.
It is essential that we see it.
-
There is a final reminder and I will look for the original pcn though I can’t remember if we have actually received it
-
A Letter of Claim should be responded to, I suggest simply, see https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct
the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14 days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of the claim are disputed
Do you have the original PCN from Britannia (not the reminder)? There may be a defence that can be constructed around this. But the driver entered into a contract by parking, did not comply with the terms, and the registered keeper is now being pursued for payment by using the Protection of Freedoms Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
If you do not have the original PCN, you can obtain it by sending a Subject Access Request to Britannia.
-
Hi All,
A further update to this.
bwlegal were appointed by Britannia Parking to deal with this. They have now sent a Letter of Claim - final notice before legal actioan escalation giving time to reply until 4th July.
As mentioned in the previous post, due to a silliness of not realising that car park is now covered by cctv, therefore the payment was for 1h only and not 2 hours as they wanted to.
There was no contact with them yet so they do not know who the driver was and they only have details of a registered keeper.
I have uploaded all the documents that we have received today as part of this Letter of Claim pack.
Particulars of debt section in their paperwork states this:
'On 03 March 2026, you were granted a limited contractual license to enter the land known as Basildon - College Way Basildon ("site"), which is managed and operated by our client. In return, you were to abide by certain terms and conditions ("Terms and Conditions") which were prominently displayed on the signage erected in situ by our client. On 03 March 2026, you breached the Terms and Conditions - reason: Failed To Make A Valid Payment ("Breach"). The Breach resulted in our client issuing a Parking Charge Notice ('PCN') on 10/03/2026 which, despite our client's attempts to engage with you and agree a suitable payment arrangement, remains upaid.
Any help would be greatly appreciated please.
https://ibb.co/Psf2FRT0
https://ibb.co/r2g23JTV
https://ibb.co/5xwxSYFg
https://ibb.co/JSvX6M7
https://ibb.co/rRrTVQ6H
https://ibb.co/xKftbgQT
https://ibb.co/VWgX406C
https://ibb.co/fhKsCQT
https://ibb.co/nqt0TYZp
https://ibb.co/Z1pFZD4P
https://ibb.co/Gf75c69b
https://ibb.co/h1dqWkBP
-
Hi all,
Despite trying our best we have found ourselves in the situation where some advice would be very helpful please.
Britannia Parking sent a parking charge final reminder letter which was issued 30/03/2026. It has only just arrived to registered keeper yesterday....
The parking charge was issued on 10/03/26 they say. Looking through records it has been established that parking was paid for 1h only and not longer. It took a very long time to find parking but as the car park previously had wardens and not cctv, it was thought that 1h will be sufficient for the parking. Turns out they do have cctv now and the whole parkign period was counted as 1h 25min .
Is there anything that should be sent to Britannia Parking at this given moment? I do believe this will now be passed on to DCB or someone to manage. Bit lost on this now.
https://ibb.co/FLdqCx5f
https://ibb.co/q3cNPfPF