NO. This has to be sent to the county court at Bristol and copied in to DCB Legal. Bristol County Court: e-filing.bristol.countycourt@justice.gov.uk. DCB Legal: info@dcblegal.co.uk. Also CC yourself.
Here is the defence you should submit. Make sure that it is send as an attachment in an email with the following subject: Claim No: [XXXXXXX] – Filing of Defence pursuant to Order dated 7 July 2025. You will have to attach the defence as a PDF to the email and put the following in the body of the email:
Subject: Claim No: [XXXXXXX] – Filing of Defence pursuant to Order dated 7 July 2025
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please find attached the Defence in the above matter, filed in compliance with the Order of District Judge Napier dated 7 July 2025.
This document has also been served on the Claimant’s legal representative.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
Make sure you have all the necessary placeholders filled is for the headers and sign it by simply typing your full name and put in todays date:
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BRISTOL
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
Vehicle Control Services Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies entering into any contract with the Claimant and denies any breach of any enforceable terms. The claim is inadequately pleaded in breach of CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 paragraph 7.3. It is unsupported by evidence, fails to disclose a valid cause of action, and is legally misconceived. The Defendant respectfully invites the court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) or to dismiss it in its entirety.
2. The Particulars of Claim are inadequately pleaded and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 paragraph 7.3. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the PoC allege that the Defendant is pursued either as the driver or, in the alternative, as the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The Claimant has failed to plead the wording of any contractual term alleged to have been breached. It merely states a “reason” — “Stopping TO Pick UP/Drop Off In A Restricted Zone” — which is not a contract term. This does not disclose any intelligible cause of action in contract.
3. The Claimant has not complied with CPR PD 16 paragraph 7.3(1), which requires that where a claim is based on a written agreement, the contract or the relevant parts of it must be attached or set out. The Claimant has failed to provide a copy of any signage or state the wording that forms the alleged contract. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of the exact contractual terms said to have been offered and accepted.
4. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration WF14WUO. The Defendant has not been identified as the driver. There is no legal obligation on the keeper to identify the driver, and no such identification has been made. The burden of proof remains with the Claimant. In Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Mark Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], HHJ Hennessy confirmed that no adverse inference may be drawn against a Defendant in respect of driver identity without clear evidence.
5. The land in question — Bristol Airport — is subject to statutory control under airport byelaws. Accordingly, it is not “relevant land” within the meaning of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. PoFA cannot apply, and the Claimant is barred in law from holding the registered keeper liable. Without driver identification, the claim must fail.
6. Furthermore, the Defendant asserts that the signage at Bristol Airport is prohibitive in nature, using wording to the effect of “No Stopping at Any Time”. A prohibitory notice is not capable of forming a contract. This principle was confirmed in the persuasive appeal decision in PCM UK v Bull (2016) [B4GF26K6], where the court found that a sign stating “Strictly No Parking” was a prohibition, not an offer, and could not form the basis of a contract. No contractual liability can arise from a notice that forbids the very act it penalises.
7. The Claimant’s own CCTV stills show the vehicle lawfully stopped at a red light at a pedestrian crossing on a roadway within Bristol Airport. The vehicle was stationary in compliance with traffic control regulations, and all other traffic is visibly stopped in both directions. While the vehicle was waiting for the light to change, a third party — not the driver or keeper — independently approached and entered the vehicle. The Claimant does not allege that the driver solicited this person, nor can a driver be held liable for the autonomous actions of another adult during a lawful traffic stop. There is no breach of contract or contravention of any kind in stopping at a red light, and no contractual liability can arise from the incidental boarding of a passenger under such circumstances.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it holds valid and contemporaneous authority from the landowner to issue charges at the precise location where the vehicle was recorded as stopping. This authority must specifically cover the act of stopping (as distinct from parking), and must include the power to issue and enforce penalty-style charges for alleged traffic control breaches such as pausing at a red light. The land in question is subject to statutory control under airport byelaws, which may restrict or prohibit such delegation. A generic site agreement or parking management contract is not sufficient. The Defendant requires disclosure of an unredacted contract showing that the Claimant was expressly authorised to issue charges of the kind alleged at the material time and location. Without such evidence, the Claimant lacks standing and the claim is fatally flawed.
9. The additional £70 added to the £100 parking charge is an unrecoverable sum presented as “damages” or “costs.” It is not contractually owed, and no legal basis for it has been pleaded. This constitutes double recovery and is an abuse of process. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (2020) [G4QZ465V], the court struck out a similar claim for this reason.
10. In the alternative, and without prejudice to the primary submission that the claim is fatally defective in form and unsupported by evidence, the Defendant denies any contractual liability for the brief and lawful stop described. No breach occurred, no enforceable contract was formed, and the Claimant has failed to establish any legal entitlement to the sum claimed. The Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed.
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:
No, the issue date of the claim is 19th February 2025.
With an issue date of 19th February, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th March to submit your defence. However, if you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 24th March to submit your defence.
If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order that goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.
When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF attachment and send as an attachment in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
Vehicle Control 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:
Draft Order for the defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0)