Show Posts
1
Private parking tickets / Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
« on: March 09, 2026, 05:26:34 pm »
Here is an updated defence letter I am planning to submit, a bit more specific to the case here.
DEFENCE
The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle referred to in the claim. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim.
The Claimant alleges that the vehicle remained parked at Selly Oak Shopping Park beyond the maximum permitted stay on two occasions, namely 12 July 2022 and 20 July 2022.
The Defendant has not been provided with evidence identifying the driver. The Defendant is under no obligation to identify the driver and declines to do so. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof as to the identity of the driver.
In order to pursue the registered keeper, the Claimant must demonstrate strict compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of that statute and is therefore unable to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
The Claimant relies upon Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) timestamps which merely record entry and exit to the site. These timestamps do not establish the period of parking and do not account for time spent entering the site, locating a space, manoeuvring within the car park, reading signage, or queueing to exit.
The alleged overstay on 12 July 2022 is approximately eleven minutes based solely on ANPR entry and exit timestamps. This period is entirely consistent with the mandatory grace periods required under the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association, of which the Claimant is a member. Those grace periods include time for a driver to read the signage upon arrival and a minimum ten-minute grace period to leave the car park after the permitted parking period has expired.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that these grace periods were properly applied and that the ANPR timestamps represent the actual period of parking rather than merely the vehicle’s presence within the site boundary.
The Claimant is further put to strict proof that the signage at the location was sufficiently prominent and clear to form a legally binding contract with the driver.
The Claimant is also put to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to issue parking charges and pursue litigation in its own name.
Prior to proceedings, the Defendant requested key documents including signage evidence and landowner authority. The Claimant failed to provide these documents, asserting that the request was disproportionate. This conduct demonstrates a failure to properly engage with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
The Particulars of Claim are sparse and fail to adequately set out the contractual terms allegedly breached. The claim therefore fails to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as they do not provide sufficient detail to enable the Defendant to understand the precise basis of the claim.
The Claimant seeks to recover £340 for two parking charges originally issued at £100 each. The additional £70 per charge is described as “damages” or “debt recovery” and represents an attempt at double recovery.
Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 makes clear that the maximum sum recoverable from a registered keeper is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper. The additional sums claimed are therefore unrecoverable.
The Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis permitted a parking charge in specific circumstances but confirmed that the parking charge itself already includes the operational costs of running the scheme. It does not permit the recovery of additional debt recovery costs.
The additional sums sought are therefore an abuse of process and an attempt to artificially inflate the value of the claim.
For the reasons stated above, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or to any relief whatsoever.
DEFENCE
The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle referred to in the claim. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim.
The Claimant alleges that the vehicle remained parked at Selly Oak Shopping Park beyond the maximum permitted stay on two occasions, namely 12 July 2022 and 20 July 2022.
The Defendant has not been provided with evidence identifying the driver. The Defendant is under no obligation to identify the driver and declines to do so. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof as to the identity of the driver.
In order to pursue the registered keeper, the Claimant must demonstrate strict compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of that statute and is therefore unable to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
The Claimant relies upon Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) timestamps which merely record entry and exit to the site. These timestamps do not establish the period of parking and do not account for time spent entering the site, locating a space, manoeuvring within the car park, reading signage, or queueing to exit.
The alleged overstay on 12 July 2022 is approximately eleven minutes based solely on ANPR entry and exit timestamps. This period is entirely consistent with the mandatory grace periods required under the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association, of which the Claimant is a member. Those grace periods include time for a driver to read the signage upon arrival and a minimum ten-minute grace period to leave the car park after the permitted parking period has expired.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that these grace periods were properly applied and that the ANPR timestamps represent the actual period of parking rather than merely the vehicle’s presence within the site boundary.
The Claimant is further put to strict proof that the signage at the location was sufficiently prominent and clear to form a legally binding contract with the driver.
The Claimant is also put to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to issue parking charges and pursue litigation in its own name.
Prior to proceedings, the Defendant requested key documents including signage evidence and landowner authority. The Claimant failed to provide these documents, asserting that the request was disproportionate. This conduct demonstrates a failure to properly engage with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
The Particulars of Claim are sparse and fail to adequately set out the contractual terms allegedly breached. The claim therefore fails to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as they do not provide sufficient detail to enable the Defendant to understand the precise basis of the claim.
The Claimant seeks to recover £340 for two parking charges originally issued at £100 each. The additional £70 per charge is described as “damages” or “debt recovery” and represents an attempt at double recovery.
Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 makes clear that the maximum sum recoverable from a registered keeper is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper. The additional sums claimed are therefore unrecoverable.
The Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis permitted a parking charge in specific circumstances but confirmed that the parking charge itself already includes the operational costs of running the scheme. It does not permit the recovery of additional debt recovery costs.
The additional sums sought are therefore an abuse of process and an attempt to artificially inflate the value of the claim.
For the reasons stated above, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or to any relief whatsoever.