Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Learner1 on June 17, 2026, 06:58:17 pm
-
Hello
The defence deadline is 04:00 pm today.
Can you please have a look at this proposed draft.Chat GPT helped me with this.
Defence
The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety and denies any liability to the Claimant.
The Particulars of Claim ("PoC") are sparse and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD16. The PoC do not adequately plead the contractual terms relied upon, the conduct said to constitute breach, the basis of the alleged debt, or how the sum claimed has been calculated.
The PoC state that the Defendant is pursued as the driver and, alternatively, as keeper pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). The Claimant has therefore failed to identify the driver and is put to strict proof of driver identity.
The Defendant is under no legal obligation to identify the driver and no adverse inference can be drawn from the Defendant exercising that right.
The Claimant relies upon ANPR images showing entry and exit times only. Such images do not identify the driver and do not establish the actual period of parking.
The Notice to Keeper alleges a stay from 08:36:05 until 15:52:12, a period of 7 hours 16 minutes.
The ANPR images merely record a vehicle entering and leaving the site boundary. They do not prove when the vehicle was parked, whether time was spent locating a space, waiting, loading, unloading, queuing, or exiting the site.
POFA Schedule 4 requires the Claimant to specify the period of parking. Entry and exit timestamps alone do not necessarily establish a period of parking.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complied fully with all mandatory requirements of POFA Schedule 4 necessary to transfer liability from driver to keeper.
The Defendant does not admit that any contract was formed between the driver and the Claimant.
The Claimant has provided no evidence of the signage relied upon, its wording, prominence, positioning, illumination or compliance with the applicable Code of Practice.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that the signage was sufficiently clear and prominent to communicate any alleged four-hour maximum stay and to create a legally binding contract.
The Claimant is further put to strict proof that it possessed valid landowner authority at the material time to offer parking contracts, issue parking charges and commence legal proceedings in its own name.
The Notice to Keeper merely refers to the land as the Claimant's client's private property. This is not evidence of authority.
The original parking charge was £100. The claim seeks £170 before interest and court fees.
The additional £70 is denied. It is not supported by POFA, was not incurred, and appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
The Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 concerned the parking charge itself and does not support the addition of an extra £70 debt recovery sum.
The Claimant is put to strict proof of the contractual and legal basis for the additional £70.
The Defendant denies that the Claimant has suffered damages in the sum claimed or at all.
The Court is invited to find that the Claimant has failed to establish driver liability, keeper liability, contractual liability, entitlement to the additional £70, or any cause of action against the Defendant.
Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Signed: ___________________
Dated: ___________________
-
Your deadline is 22 June if you submitted AoS by 8 June because of weekends I think.
Your proposed defence is generic boilerplate template stuff, and has been struck out by the courts as such. But what else can you say? The driver overstayed and didn’t pay, didn’t they?
The driver entered into a contract by parking, according to the terms and conditions displayed. If the Notice to Keeper complied with the requirements of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012, liability can be transferred from the unknown driver. I’m not sure whether or not it did, so wait to see what others advise.
Thank you, @jfollows, for checking the deadline; I didn't consider the weekend.
This means I have more days to prepare a better defence.
Regarding overstaying and payment, please note that this car park doesn't have on-site payment facilities. It's just a 4-hour maximum stay in the car park.
Can anyone else, please, have a look and let me know what changes you suggest to the proposed defence I shared in the first post?
I am approaching the deadline, and any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you so much
-
Your deadline is 22 June if you submitted AoS by 8 June because of weekends I think.
Your proposed defence is generic boilerplate template stuff, and has been struck out by the courts as such. But what else can you say? The driver overstayed and didn’t pay, didn’t they?
The driver entered into a contract by parking, according to the terms and conditions displayed. If the Notice to Keeper complied with the requirements of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012, liability can be transferred from the unknown driver. I’m not sure whether or not it did, so wait to see what others advise.
-
Hello, Everyone
I would be really grateful if someone could please help me finalise the draft for my defence to this claim, made by DCB Legal on behalf of UKPC.
Timeline of the claim form so far:
The claim was issued on 18/05/2026
AoS was submitted on 26/05/2026.
AoS was received on 26/05/2026.
After reading the information on the forums here, I worked out that the deadline to submit my defence is 4:00 pm on 19/06/2026. My calculation of 33 days may be wrong; please correct me if I am mistaken.
Unfortunately, I was away due to pressing commitments; hence, I could not ask for help earlier.
The background to receiving this claim form is that the driver parked at Apsley Retail Park, where parking is allowed for a maximum of 4 hours for shoppers.
They needed to attend a hospital appointment in London and had initially planned to drive, but after a major accident on the motorway, they decided to park in a nearby town and take the train instead. The driver hoped to get back within 4 hours, but I didn't go as planned, and the car ended up overstaying in the car park for 3 hours and 16 minutes.
28/11/2025 NTK Sent - Ignored; no communication was made to UKPC
Front
https://flic.kr/p/2sje7SU (https://flic.kr/p/2sje7SU)
Back
https://flic.kr/p/2sjjCJ8 (https://flic.kr/p/2sjjCJ8)
All following letters from DCB Legal were ignored; no communication was made
Then the claim form was received, dated 18/06/2026
https://flic.kr/p/2sje8FT (https://flic.kr/p/2sje8FT)
After reading many similar topics here, I found a couple of defence drafts written by b789, but I'm not sure they fit my situation.
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 adequately 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 submits that courts have previously struck out similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. 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 due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals to the judge for case management.
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.
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 adequately 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 submits that courts have previously struck out
similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately
comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of
Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or
explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found
that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. 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
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with
CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant
proposes that the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because:
(a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause
(or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which
is (or are) relied on; and
(b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why
the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of
contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it
served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have
done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the
court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with
the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share
of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of
claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals
to the judge for case management.
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
Could you please have a look at these and help me draft one that is most suitable in my situation, please?
Thank you so much