Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Username2025 on November 23, 2025, 05:58:47 pm
-
Thank you once again, b789.
I have submitted the quoted defence now on MCOL.
I will await the next steps of action and will keep the this thread updated as such.
Greatly appreciated
-
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.
Here is a bespoke defence with all the necessary "hooks" you can later rely on in your Witness Statement, if the claim proceeds all the way to a hearing.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.
1. The Defendant was at all material times the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant declines to identify the driver and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity.
2. The Particulars of Claim are sparse. They merely assert PoFA keeper liability (“notice has been given to the registered keeper, making them liable”) without pleading facts showing compliance with Schedule 4, which is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof.
3. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with PoFA Schedule 4. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any Notice to Keeper was served within the prescribed timescales, specified a period of parking (not merely ANPR times), contained all mandatory wording and was otherwise fully compliant, failing which the Defendant as keeper has no liability.
4. The Claimant’s own documentation, including the “Parking Charge Information” letter, relies solely on ANPR timestamps showing the vehicle entering Welcome Break Corley (North) services at 16:36:04 and exiting at 18:52:19 on 4 August 2025, a total of 2 hours 16 minutes “on site”. ANPR cameras record only the times a vehicle passes the cameras, not any actual period of parking.
5. It is denied that the Claimant has established any breach of contract. Time spent:
(i) driving from the ANPR camera to a parking bay on arrival; and
(ii) later manoeuvring out of the bay, driving within the site and queuing or waiting to exit,
is not “parking” and cannot properly be counted as part of any “period of parking” for PoFA or contractual purposes. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the actual period, if any, during which the vehicle was parked in a marked bay.
6. The Claimant alleges a two-hour maximum stay with a ~16 minute overstay based only on ANPR times. The Defendant denies that any proven period of parking exceeded two hours plus the minimum 10-minute exit grace required by the Private Parking Single Code of Practice and puts the Claimant to strict proof that, after deducting non-parking arrival/departure time and grace, any driver was in breach of any term.
7. The Defendant is informed and believes that any driver used the services car park solely for a short rest due to tiredness on a long motorway journey, remaining in the vehicle throughout. Motorway service areas exist to facilitate such safety‑critical rest breaks. Penalising a brief, safety‑related rest based only on ANPR “time on site”, ignoring non‑parking time and grace, is unfair and not transparent to the average consumer. Any alleged term imposing a three‑figure penalty for a brief rest break is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and not binding.
8. It is further denied that the Claimant’s signage at Welcome Break Corley (North) was sufficiently prominent, legible or clear to form any contract incorporating the alleged two‑hour limit, any requirement to pay a tariff thereafter, or any obligation to pay a three‑figure charge. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the terms displayed at the entrance and at the location where the vehicle was parked, their prominence and legibility, and contemporaneous landowner authority including any agreed maximum stay and grace periods.
9. As to quantum, Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) PoFA limits any keeper liability to the amount specified on the Notice to Keeper, believed to be £100. The Claimant nevertheless claims £130, so the extra £30, not specified on the NtK or signage, is an invented add-on amounting to impermissible double recovery, unsupported by ParkingEye v Beavis and contrary to PoFA 4(5); the Defendant denies that any sum above £100 (if due at all) is recoverable.
10. The Defendant denies that any sum is owed to the Claimant, whether by the Defendant as keeper or by any driver, and puts the Claimant to strict proof of every element of its cause of action, including driver identity (if pursued), contractual terms, any alleged breach, full PoFA compliance, and the principal sum and all add-ons.
11. The Defendant reserves the right to seek costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct if the Claimant persists with a claim that is legally hopeless.
-
Thank you b789 and apologies, this is actually the correct initial PCN (https://ibb.co/tpGDpKJG) which looks very similar to the reminder from the front, but is different on the back page. I cannot see anything on this letter that reads "Notice to Keeper" though, so I hope it is the correct one you have requested as this is the first letter that I received from PE.
I will submit an AoS as the extra time to prepare will certainly come in handy.
Driver did not purchase any fuel whilst at the services no, but notes that the distance between the Car Park itself and the exit slip road back onto the motorway was a fair distance, roughly 2 minutes of driving time.
Thank you once again and I will keep the thread updated with any activity
-
What you have shown is the PCN reminder. It is of no use to us. We must see the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) you received.
However, with an issue date of 18th November, you have until 4pm on Monday 1st December to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 15th December to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare 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
Once we have seen both sides of the original NtK, we can advise on the defence you will need to submit.
Did the driver purchase fuel before or after leaving the services?
-
Hi all.
I would like to express my gratitude to this community.
On the date in question, whilst travelling home on the Motorway after a long day, the driver became very tired and decided that they should take a break at the next service station. Upon entering the car park of Welcome Break Corley, the driver parked up and proceeded to take a planned nap in the car. After waking up from their sleep, the driver then carried on with their journey, exiting the car park and travelling back up the motorway. Driver was in the car for duration of the stay as the purpose was to rest and regain focus for the remainder of the driving ahead of them. Driver also did not realise that they had breached any parking policies in doing this.
I, the registered keeper, have now received N1STD claim form letters (https://ibb.co/9mWPtzdn) from Parkingeye in regards to the above.
Here is the initial PCN (https://ibb.co/G4FGSWML) - There has been no contact with Parkingeye by myself up to this point.
Addition letters sent to myself by Parkingeye are: 29 Days Later Letter (https://ibb.co/JRVh978f) and Letter before Court (https://ibb.co/vCGCbGwd)
I would like to reach out for advice on proceeding with the current situation and would be very grateful for any assistance and time accorded to myself. Please do not hesitate to ask me any questions should you need further clarity with anything.
Kind Regards