Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thanks for your suggestions it's been very helpful. Please see the new draft and any pointer would be appreciated -

Draft Defence
1. Denial of liability
1.   The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any relief at all.
2.   The Defendant’s position is that the claim should be dismissed because the vehicle occupants were genuine authorised users of the hotel facilities, the driver made a genuine attempt to comply with the parking requirements, the Defendant received confirmation that the charge had been cancelled and reasonably relied on that confirmation, and the sums now claimed are disputed.
2. Background
1.   The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
2.   On the material date in March 2022, the driver attended a swimming lesson at a Holiday Inn hotel. The lesson was operated by a third-party swim company using the hotel’s facilities.
3.   The vehicle occupants were genuine users of the hotel facilities and understood they were permitted to park, subject to entering the vehicle registration at reception.
4.   The driver believes the registration was entered at reception, but it may have involved a minor keying error affecting a single character.
5.   If the claim is based on an alleged registration input issue, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of the registration logs from the material date, including whether a near-match registration was entered.
3. Cancellation of the charge
1.   Following receipt of the original parking charge, the Defendant challenged the matter through the swimming lesson provider, who escalated it to Holiday Inn.
2.   Evidence was provided showing that the vehicle occupants were legitimate users of the premises.
3.   The Defendant subsequently received WhatsApp confirmation from the swimming lesson provider that the charge had been cancelled.
4.   The Defendant reasonably relied on that confirmation, believed the matter had been resolved, and therefore took no further action at that time.
5.   The Defendant will rely on that cancellation confirmation and the supporting evidence.
4. Subsequent correspondence
1.   The Defendant did not receive correspondence confirming that the cancellation had not been actioned, that the charge remained outstanding, that the charge had increased, or that the matter would be escalated to debt recovery.
2.   In June 2023, the Defendant received correspondence from DCBL seeking £170.
3.   The Defendant contacted DCBL, explained that the charge had previously been disputed and cancelled, and supplied supporting evidence.
4.   DCBL stated that they were acting only for debt recovery purposes and would not review the evidence or consider an appeal.
5.   The Defendant subsequently contacted ParkingEye directly and sought to appeal the charge. ParkingEye responded stating that no appeal was recorded on their file.
6.   The Defendant’s position is that ParkingEye’s later response does not undermine the earlier cancellation confirmation received via the swimming provider/Holiday Inn route, which the Defendant reasonably relied upon.
5. Additional sums claimed
1.   The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to recover the additional sums claimed above the original parking charge.
2.   The claim seeks £234.08 before court fees and legal costs, despite the original parking charge being £100. The Defendant understands this includes the £170 charge plus interest and/or additional sums.
3.   The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of how the claimed amount has been calculated, the contractual basis relied upon, and whether all sums claimed are legally recoverable.
4.   The Defendant further denies that any additional debt recovery costs form part of any recoverable contractual charge and avers that any such sum is an attempt at double recovery.
6. Strict proof required
1.   The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that clear and prominent signage existed at the site, the relevant contractual terms were properly communicated, the Claimant had authority from the landowner to issue parking charges and pursue litigation, the alleged breach occurred as pleaded, and the Claimant is entitled to rely upon keeper liability if such reliance is asserted.
7. Conclusion
1.   The Defendant’s case is that the vehicle occupants were legitimate users of the premises, the driver attempted to comply with the registration process, the Defendant received and relied upon confirmation that the charge had been cancelled, and the Defendant disputes both liability and the additional sums claimed.
2.   Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed.

Thanks for the responses, here is the link to the claims form, any issues or you need more info please let me know -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-8gZCfgZpJJ6DRC03d1-w6QwQNfdeHxm/view?usp=sharing

I've drafted a defence with the help of AI so please let me know if this is along the right lines or I should take a different approach with it -

Defence

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all.

The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle referred to in the claim. The Defendant’s partner was using the vehicle on the material date when taking their son to a swimming lesson at the Holiday Inn premises. The swimming lesson was provided by a third-party swim company using the hotel’s pool facilities.

The vehicle was parked at the Holiday Inn because the Defendant’s partner and child were genuine users of the facilities. This was not a case of parking at the site for an unrelated purpose.

The Defendant understands that the car park had recently started being managed by ParkingEye and that users of the hotel facilities were required to enter their vehicle registration at reception. The Defendant’s partner believes she entered the vehicle registration at reception, although it is possible that one character may have been entered incorrectly.

The Defendant’s position is that any alleged breach, if one occurred, arose from a genuine attempt to comply with the registration process and/or a minor keying error. The Defendant does not accept that this gave rise to a valid or proportionate parking charge in the circumstances.

Following receipt of the original ParkingEye charge, issued on or around 14 March 2022, the Defendant challenged the matter through the swimming lesson provider, who escalated it to Holiday Inn. The Defendant provided evidence that the vehicle occupants were using the facilities legitimately.

The Defendant received confirmation by WhatsApp from the swimming lesson provider that the charge had been cancelled. The Defendant therefore reasonably believed that the matter had been resolved and closed.

The Defendant did not receive clear follow-up correspondence from ParkingEye confirming that the charge remained outstanding, that the cancellation had not been actioned, that the sum had increased, or that the matter would be escalated to debt recovery.

In June 2023, the Defendant received correspondence from DCBL seeking £170. The Defendant contacted DCBL within the stated timeframe and explained that the charge had already been disputed and that the Defendant understood it had been cancelled. The Defendant also provided evidence supporting that position.

DCBL stated that they were acting only in relation to debt recovery and would not review the evidence or consider an appeal. The Defendant was therefore not given a meaningful opportunity at that stage to resolve the matter or have the evidence properly reviewed.

The Defendant also contacted ParkingEye directly and sought to appeal the matter. ParkingEye responded to say that there was no appeal on their file. The Defendant’s understanding is that Holiday Inn may have informed the swimming company that the charge would be cancelled, but that this was not actioned with ParkingEye.

The Defendant is now unable to obtain further information directly from Holiday Inn because the hotel premises have since closed to the public.

From September 2024 onwards, the Defendant received correspondence from DCB Legal Solicitors, together with further calls and letters from DCBL. The Defendant continued to engage with the process and repeatedly explained that the charge was disputed and that the Defendant did not accept liability.

On 14 July 2026, the Defendant received a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal. The Defendant responded within the 30-day period, confirming that payment would not be made because liability was denied, and explaining that the Defendant was engaging with the process so there could be no suggestion that the matter was being ignored.

The Defendant denies that the Claimant has properly accounted for the previous cancellation confirmation, the evidence provided, or the Defendant’s attempts to resolve the matter.

The Defendant further denies that the Claimant is entitled to recover the additional sum claimed above the original parking charge. The claim now seeks £319.08, including a claimed amount of £234.08, a £35 court fee, and £50 legal costs. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of how the claimed amount has been calculated and why any additional debt recovery or interest sums are said to be recoverable.

The Defendant avers that any added debt recovery sum is not a genuine contractual fee incurred by the Claimant and is an attempt at double recovery. The Defendant understands that the usual parking charge already includes the Claimant’s operating and recovery costs.

The Defendant also puts the Claimant to strict proof that:

the signage at the site was clear, prominent, and capable of forming a contract;
the terms relating to registration entry and any charges for alleged keying errors were clearly brought to the attention of motorists;
the Claimant had authority from the landowner or lawful occupier to issue parking charges and pursue court proceedings in its own name;
the alleged breach occurred as pleaded;
the Defendant is liable as registered keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, if the Claimant seeks to rely on keeper liability;
the amount claimed is recoverable.

The Defendant will rely on the fact that the occupants of the vehicle were authorised users of the Holiday Inn facilities, that evidence of this was provided, and that the Defendant received confirmation that the charge had been cancelled.

The Defendant’s case is that it would be unfair and unreasonable for the Claimant to pursue a parking charge years later in circumstances where the Defendant reasonably believed the matter had been cancelled, engaged with the process throughout, and was not given a proper opportunity for the evidence to be reviewed once debt recovery action began.

For the reasons above, the Defendant denies the claim in full and asks the Court to dismiss it.

Hi all, I’m looking for advice on a Parking Eye charge from March 2022 that has now reached the HM Courts & Tribunals Service stage.
My partner took our son to a swimming lesson at a Holiday Inn. The car is registered to me. The car park had recently started being managed by Parking Eye and users had to enter their registration at reception. My partner believes she did this, but may have entered one character incorrectly. Parking Eye issued a £100 charge, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.
I challenged it at the time through the swimming lesson provider, who escalated it to Holiday Inn. I provided proof that we were using the facilities and received WhatsApp confirmation from the swim provider saying the charge had been cancelled, so I believed the matter was closed.
In June 2023, I received a DCBL debt recovery letter for £170. I told them the charge had already been disputed and cancelled, and provided evidence, but they said they were only acting for debt recovery and would not review the evidence or consider an appeal. I also appealed directly to Parking Eye, but they said there was no appeal on their file. My assumption is that Holiday Inn may have told the swim company it would be cancelled but did not action it with Parking Eye. The hotel has since closed to the public, so I cannot contact them directly.
From September 2024, I started receiving correspondence from DCB Legal, along with further calls and letters from DCBL. I continued to engage and explain my position, but found the contact intimidating and stressful. I also made clear that both my partner and I suffer from stress and anxiety, and that the ongoing contact was having a significant impact on us, which made no difference to their approach.
On 14 July 2026, DCB Legal sent a Letter of Claim. I responded within the 30-day period, confirmed I would not be paying because I do not consider myself liable, and explained that I was engaging so there could be no suggestion I was ignoring the matter.
I have now received HMCTS papers dated 26 August 2026. The claimant is Parking Eye, with DCB Legal acting as solicitor. They are claiming £319.08, made up of a £234.08 claimed amount (£170 charge plus interest), a £35 court fee, and £50 legal costs. I need to submit my response by 15 September 2026.
My questions are: should I defend the claim; what should I include in my response; does the WhatsApp cancellation confirmation help; is there an issue with the lack of communication before the amount increased and was passed to debt recovery; and does it matter that I was not given a proper opportunity to appeal or have my evidence reviewed once DCBL became involved?
I would also appreciate advice on what happens next, as I have never been to court before and am nervous about the process. I am prepared to defend it because I do not feel I am in the wrong or that the correct process has been followed. I would also like to know whether anyone has successfully raised a counterclaim for the stress, anxiety, repeated debt collector contact, and potential time off work/travel costs if the matter goes to court.
Thanks in advance.