IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NOTTINGHAMClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:Filed pursuant to the Order of District Judge Wylie dated 23 October 2025
I Park Services Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
AMENDED DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies liability in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that no contract was formed, no parking occurred, and no parking charge is owed. The claim is misconceived, and the facts alleged are denied.
2. The Particulars of Claim (PoC), filed and signed by Sarah Ensall of DCB Legal Ltd, do not disclose a properly pleaded cause of action. Despite the court’s view that the PoC identify the location, time and date of the alleged contravention, they fail to specify:(a) The contractual term alleged to have been breached;
(b) Whether the Defendant is pursued as driver, keeper, or both;
(c) The specific conduct said to give rise to liability;
(d) Any breakdown of the inflated sum claimed.
3. The Defendant denies breaching any term and puts the Claimant to strict proof of:
(i)The full, contemporaneous signage in place at the material time;
(ii) Its compliance with the IPC Code of Practice;
(iii) A valid contract formed by conduct;
(iv) The quantum claimed.
4. No parking occurred. The vehicle was on site for less than 2 minutes and 13 seconds, during which the driver attempted to locate a space but found none and exited. The Claimant’s evidence confirms this short duration. It is denied that the vehicle was parked or that a contract was accepted.
5. The Claimant failed to provide the mandatory consideration period. Section 13.1 of the IPC Code of Practice (Schedule 7, Table B.1) requires a minimum consideration period of 5 minutes at a Pay & Display car park. The Claimant issued a charge for a stay of less than half this time, in breach of the Code.
6. The Claimant unlawfully obtained the Defendant’s data from the DVLA. By failing to adhere to its Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, the Claimant has breached the KADOE contract and had no lawful basis under GDPR Article 6(1)(f) to process the Defendant’s personal data. The DVLA data was obtained unlawfully and must not be used to found a claim.
7. The Defendant is the registered keeper and has not identified the driver as there is no legal obligation to do so to an unregulated private parking firm. The Claimant is put to strict proof. The Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and cannot rely on keeper liability.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of landowner authority. The Defendant does not admit that the Claimant has legal standing to bring this claim in its own name. The Claimant has failed to produce any evidence of a contract with the lawful landowner or lessee granting them such rights.
9. The claim is tainted by procedural impropriety. The PoC are signed by Sarah Ensall of DCB Legal Ltd. The Defendant is aware that Ms Ensall is not an authorised person within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007, and therefore not permitted to conduct litigation. The claim is improperly issued, and the signature on the PoC is invalid. The Defendant reserves the right to refer to Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), where the High Court confirmed that unauthorised persons cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision.
10. The Defendant avers that the claim is predatory and abusive. It is an automated claim, issued with no attempt to review or consider the facts. The conduct of the Claimant and its legal representative is unreasonable and, if the claim proceeds to trial and is dismissed, the Defendant will seek a costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
11. The Defendant respectfully invites the court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4, or to dismiss it following trial.
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:
Subject: Response to you Letter of Claim Ref: [reference number]
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail and fails to provide copies of evidence your client relies upon. This is contrary to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1, and 5.2, as well as paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions are not optional; they exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution.
As a firm of supposed solicitors, one would expect you to be capable of crafting a letter that aligns with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions do not exist for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), stipulate that prior to proceedings, parties should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 helpfully clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when your side declines to furnish the very document it purports to enforce.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that confirms any PoFA 2012 liability
2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between your client and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date, not a generic stock image
3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon that you allege to have been breached
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce
5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT
I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
IN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
I Park Services 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(7.5);
(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:
I won't hold my breath but it would very fishy if they uphold the PCN.Not really. It could be covered in the WS, if it ever gets that far.
Is it worth highlighting further non-compliance when I Park Services have sent out letters chasing funds despite the case still being reviewed within the appeals process?
I hope I'm proved wrong, but if the IAS don't cancel the PCN based on the lack of operator compliance, then you have definitive proof that they are nothing but a corrupt mafia looking after their members interests.indeed their response will be an interesting read
Re: Parking Charge Notice Issued by I Park Services Ltd - Vehicle Registration [VRM]
Appellant: [Your Name]
I am writing in response to I Park Services Ltd’s prima facie case submitted to the IAS regarding the above parking charge notice (PCN). The operator has failed to address the core issues raised in my appeal. I request that the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) consider the following points in support of my appeal and dismiss the PCN.
1. No Parking Occurred – No Contract Formed
In my initial appeal, I clearly stated that the vehicle was not parked, and no contract was formed. The vehicle was on site for only 2 minutes and 13 seconds, during which time the driver attempted to find a parking space and, upon realising none were available, exited the site.
The operator has failed to dispute this crucial fact. Instead, they provide generic statements about payment requirements for parking. They have not rebutted the fact that no parking took place. Since no parking occurred, no contract was formed, and no parking charge can be validly issued.
2. Breach of Consideration Period under IPC Code of Practice
I highlighted in my appeal that I Park Services Ltd violated Section 13.1 of the IPC Code of Practice, which mandates a minimum consideration period of 5 minutes for a Pay & Display car park. The vehicle was on-site for only 2 minutes and 13 seconds—far less than the required consideration period.
The operator has entirely ignored this point. Their failure to comply with the Code of Practice is a clear violation, and as such, this parking charge is unenforceable. The IAS should dismiss the PCN on this ground alone.
3. Unlawful Request for DVLA Data (KADOE Breach and GDPR Violation)
In my appeal, I asserted that the operator unlawfully obtained my data from the DVLA by breaching the KADOE contract. Under the terms of the KADOE contract, parking operators are required to comply with the relevant AOS Code of Practice. Since the operator violated the IPC Code by failing to observe the required consideration period, their access to my DVLA data was unlawful.
The operator has completely failed to address this point. This lack of rebuttal suggests an implicit acknowledgment of their breach of both the KADOE contract and GDPR regulations. This unlawful data access has caused me distress, and I maintain that the parking charge should be cancelled due to this serious violation.
4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority Provided
In my appeal, I requested that the operator provide proof of landowner authority, as required by the IPC Code of Practice. This evidence is necessary to demonstrate that the operator has the legal right to issue PCNs on the site in question.
The operator has failed to provide any evidence of landowner authority in their response. Without this authority, they have no legal standing to issue PCNs or pursue charges in their own name. I ask that the IAS dismiss this case on the grounds that the operator has not met this basic requirement.
5. Breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015
I also argued that imposing a charge for an alleged parking contravention when no parking occurred constitutes an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Part 2, Section 62. The operator’s failure to respond to this point further demonstrates that the charge is baseless and unenforceable.
The imposition of such a charge creates a significant imbalance to my detriment as a consumer, and this practice clearly violates my rights under consumer protection law. The IAS should dismiss the charge for this reason as well.
Conclusion
The operator has failed to engage with the key points raised in my appeal and has relied on generic and irrelevant statements about parking charges, which do not apply to the specific circumstances of my case. There is no evidence that the vehicle was parked, no contract was formed, and the operator has breached both the IPC Code of Practice and data protection laws.
I respectfully request that the IAS cancel this parking charge in its entirety due to the operator's failure to meet the required standards of evidence, compliance with the Code of Practice, and legal obligations under the KADOE contract and GDPR.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
The support and guidance is gratefully received. Being able to confront these rogue companies with your expert knowledge is priceless.
Intimidating innocent people to obtain their hard earned money should have no place in our communities. I accept that people blatantly violating rules should have consequences but the tactics used by these private parking companies has been a real eye opening (negative) experience for me.
Subject: Complaint Regarding Breach of KADOE Contract and Unlawful Access of Keeper’s Data
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to file a formal complaint regarding a serious breach of the KADOE contract by I Park Services Ltd, who unlawfully requested and accessed my personal data from the DVLA. I am the registered keeper of vehicle registration [VRM], and I believe the operator’s actions in this case have violated the terms of the KADOE contract and breached my rights under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Attached to this complaint is a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK), which shows that the vehicle was at the location for only 2 minutes and 13 seconds while the driver searched for an available parking space. As there were no spaces available, the driver left without parking. Despite this, I Park Services Ltd issued the NtK on the grounds that no Pay & Display permit was purchased.
This is a direct breach of the IPC Code of Practice (Version 7, Section 13 and Schedule 7), which clearly mandates that Pay & Display car parks must provide a minimum consideration period of 5 minutes for drivers to decide whether to park and accept the terms and conditions. The operator has failed to observe this mandatory consideration period, which invalidates the issuance of the parking charge.
The IPC Code of Practice is a core requirement of the KADOE contract, and I Park Services Ltd’s failure to comply with it means their request for my data from the DVLA was unlawful. Without compliance with the Code of Practice, there was no lawful basis for them to access my personal data, constituting a breach of GDPR as well.
Given these clear violations, I am requesting the following from the DVLA:1. What sanctions will be imposed on I Park Services Ltd for breaching the KADOE contract and unlawfully accessing my data?2. What steps will the DVLA take to ensure that such breaches are properly addressed and that operators acting unlawfully are held accountable?3. How will the DVLA ensure that personal data is protected from future unlawful access by parking operators?
I must stress that a mere brush-off will not be acceptable in this instance, particularly given the potential conflict of interest, as it is well known that the DVLA receives substantial revenue from parking operators like I Park Services Ltd and other “cowboys and scammers”, as referenced in Parliament (Hansard). This financial relationship should not hinder the enforcement of rules designed to protect motorists’ privacy and rights.
I look forward to your detailed response outlining the actions the DVLA will take in this case and how such breaches are being dealt with moving forward.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper of Vehicle [VRM]
IAS Appeal: Parking Charge Notice [Reference Number]
To the IAS Assessor,
I am writing to appeal the parking charge notice issued by I Park Services Ltd, relating to vehicle registration [VRM]. This notice is entirely baseless due to the following reasons:1. The vehicle was never parked, and no contract was formed.
According to the operator’s own ANPR evidence, the vehicle was on-site for a total of 2 minutes and 13 seconds. At no point was the vehicle parked, and no pay-and-display ticket was required, as no parking occurred. The driver briefly entered the site, sought a parking space, and then exited upon realising that none were available. The lack of parking means that no contract was formed, and therefore no parking charge can arise.2. Breach of the required consideration period.
Section 13.1 of the IPC's Code of Practice mandates that a parking operator must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Schedule 7. This consideration period allows drivers a reasonable time to decide whether to accept the terms and conditions by parking or to leave the site. Schedule 7, Table B.1 which lists the minimum consideration and grace periods for a Pay and Display (up-front tariff) car park on controlled land where public parking is invited as a minimum of 5 minutes.
The vehicle in question was on-site for just 2 minutes and 13 seconds—far less than the mandated consideration period.
By issuing this charge without observing the minimum consideration period, I Park Services Ltd has violated the IPC’s Code of Practice, and the parking charge is unenforceable as no contract was established.3. The operator unlawfully obtained DVLA data, breaching the KADOE contract and GDPR.
In order to access keeper data from the DVLA, parking operators must strictly adhere to the terms of the KADOE (Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event) contract. One of the core requirements of the KADOE contract is that operators must fully comply with the relevant Approved Operator Scheme’s Code of Practice, in this case, the IPC Code of Practice.
By failing to provide the required consideration period of at least 5 minutes, I Park Services Ltd has violated the IPC Code of Practice. This breach of the Code invalidates the legitimacy of the parking charge notice issued and, more crucially, also invalidates the basis upon which I Park Services Ltd requested and accessed my personal data from the DVLA.
Why the KADOE contract was breached:
Non-compliance with the Code of Practice: The KADOE contract requires operators to comply with their AOS (Approved Operator Scheme) Code of Practice, in this case, the IPC. By breaching Section 13.1 of the IPC Code (consideration period requirements), the operator was not entitled to request my data from the DVLA.
Improper justification for data access: The operator can only lawfully access keeper data if it has a valid and enforceable reason to pursue a parking charge. Since no parking occurred, no contract was formed, and no charge is enforceable, the request for my data was unjustified.
Unlawful request and GDPR breach:
As a result of breaching the KADOE contract, the operator’s request for my personal data was unlawful under both the KADOE contract and data protection laws, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Under GDPR, personal data must only be processed (in this case, accessed and used) where there is a legitimate and lawful basis. I Park Services Ltd accessed my data without a lawful basis, as their justification (the parking charge) was invalid from the outset. This constitutes a clear breach of GDPR, particularly:
Article 5(1)(a) – Lawfulness, fairness, and transparency: The operator failed to process my data lawfully, as the reason for accessing my data was based on a non-existent or unenforceable contract.
Article 6(1)(f) – Legitimate interests: The operator cannot claim legitimate interest in processing my personal data when they have breached the IPC Code of Practice and failed to comply with the KADOE contract.
By unlawfully obtaining and processing my data, the operator has misused my personal information and violated my data protection rights under GDPR. This misuse of data has caused significant distress and anxiety, as the operator continues to pursue an illegitimate parking charge based on data that was unlawfully acquired.4. No evidence of landowner authority to issue PCNs.
In order for I Park Services Ltd to issue parking charge notices (PCNs) in their own name and pursue alleged contraventions, they are required to have proper legal authority from the landowner to manage parking on the site.
I Park Services Ltd has not provided any evidence of a valid contract between themselves and the landowner, which would allow them to operate on the site and issue PCNs. In accordance with the IPC Code of Practice, this evidence must be provided to demonstrate that they have the right to form contracts with drivers and enforce parking charges in their own name.
Without this landowner authority, I Park Services Ltd has no standing to issue PCNs, and the charge must be cancelled. I expect the operator to provide unredacted proof of their landowner authority or to cancel this charge immediately.5. Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Imposing a charge for an alleged parking breach where no parking occurred constitutes an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Part 2, Section 62. The operator’s actions have created a significant imbalance to my detriment as a consumer by imposing an unreasonable charge for simply entering and leaving a car park without parking. This clearly violates my statutory rights under consumer protection law, and I expect the charge to be cancelled accordingly.Conclusion
Given the facts that the driver never parked because there were no spaces available and operator’s failure to comply with the IPC Code of Practice, the unlawful request for DVLA data, the absence of any landowner authority, and the breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, this parking charge is wholly invalid and unenforceable. I expect the charge to be cancelled.
[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper of Vehicle [VRM]
I notice that they insist that my appeal must be in writing. Is recorded delivery the expected method?The back of the notice suggests you can appeal online - https://www.iparkservices.co.uk/manage-my-pcn (https://www.iparkservices.co.uk/manage-my-pcn).
Are these things perhaps automated?Probably to a certain extent, their business model is to issue as many charges as possible, whilst incurring the least expenses possible.
How on earth is 133 seconds enough time to reasonably consider your options or find a space? Is it even enough time to locate and read the terms and conditions?The short answers to those questions are: