Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,


I posted previously - "PCN for parking w/o any visible signage - Appeal dismissed by IAS" - but the situation has now progressed to claim stage and I'd like some advice on the defence I'm drafting.


To recap briefly:

I received a PCN from Link Parking for parking at Bute Street Car Park, Cardiff on 13 August 2025. I appealed to the IAS on the grounds that there was no adequate signage and no payment facilities at the site, but the appeal was dismissed. I then received a Letter of Claim from BW Legal in February 2026, responded robustly on 27 March (requesting a 30-day hold under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and asking for disclosure of key documents), and BW Legal issued County Court proceedings without replying to my letter or providing any of the documents I requested.

Claim details:

- Claimant: Link Parking Limited (via BW Legal)
- Amount claimed: £160 (original PCN £100 + £60 "contractual recovery costs") plus £35 court fee and £50 legal costs = £245 total
- I have already filed an Acknowledgment of Service indicating I intend to defend in full

I have drafted my defence and would be very grateful if anyone could review it before I submit. The two main points of the defence are:

1. No adequate signage at the material time — no entrance sign, no visible terms within the car park, and no payment facilities. The Claimant is put to strict proof that compliant signage existed on 13 August 2025.

2. Prohibitive/forbidding contract — even if signage existed, it is prohibitive in nature (restricting parking to authorised persons) and therefore legally incapable of constituting a contractual offer. I am relying on UKPC v Masterson B6QZ4H3R [2016], PCM-UK v Bull B4GF26K6 [2016], and Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016].

I have also included a section on BW Legal's failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol (they ignored my 30-day hold request and provided none of the requested disclosure before issuing proceedings).

The defence is attached as a PDF document. My deadline to file is approximately 12th June.

A couple of specific questions I'd welcome views on:

- Is my framing of the "forbidding contract" argument correct and sufficiently developed for a small claims hearing?
- Is there anything I should add, remove, or strengthen before submitting?
- Any procedural points I may have missed?

I know this forum runs on goodwill and I'm very grateful for any time members can spare to look this over.

Happy to provide any additional documents (claim form, my LoC response, the BW Legal email of 19 May) if helpful.

Many thanks


https://ibb.co/QvRGCssn

Hi all,

An update:

I sent a LOC response to BW Legal on 27/03 and have recently received a Claim form dated 13/05.

I will respond on Moneyclaim.gov.uk today and set my intention to file a defence in the 28 day period I will be given.

Any help on filing this defence will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

Good afternoon,

Any help on next steps for this would be greatly appreciated

Thank you so much

No, there was no re-issuing of the PCN. I just appealed via IAS and then after the appeal was dismissed in October, I received a letter from BW Legal on 19th December 2025.

Draft letter: 

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question to acknowledge receipt of your Letter of Claim dated 27/02/2026.

I firmly rebut the assertion that any sum is owed to your client, Link Parking, and put you on notice that this claim will be defended in full should proceedings be issued.

No Contract Was Formed

For a parking charge to be enforceable, a binding contract must exist between the motorist and the parking operator. A contract requires an offer, acceptance, and consideration. That essential requirement is not met in this case, for the following reasons.

First, on the date in question the car park contained no signage, or no adequate signage, visible to a motorist upon entering the site. There were no pay stations present. In the absence of clear, legible signage at the point of entry, no offer capable of acceptance was communicated to the driver.

Second, and critically, even if signage had been present in adequate numbers, it is submitted that the signs relied upon by your client operate as an absolute prohibition on parking, not as an offer of parking upon stated terms. English contract law does not permit a "forbidding contract": a sign that says in effect "no parking" cannot simultaneously constitute a contractual offer of parking at a specified charge. Such a construction is a legal nullity. Without a valid offer there can be no acceptance, and without acceptance there is no contract. Accordingly, no liability arises.

This argument has been upheld in the county court, including in UKPC v Masterson, where a judge dismissed the operator's claim on analogous grounds. I reserve the right to rely on this and any other relevant authority at trial.


Registered Keeper Position

This letter is written in my capacity as registered keeper of the vehicle. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged contravention, and nothing in this letter should be construed as such an admission.

I invite your client to discontinue this matter immediately and confirm in writing that no further action will be taken. Should proceedings be issued, I will defend the claim robustly and will seek recovery of my reasonable costs.

This is the image the operator took which shows car park entrance at back -

https://ibb.co/MxGN9Gw9

*notice that there isn't any visible signs on the car park entrance, something the Operator claimed during their Prima Facie Case in the appeal that someone had taken them down:

https://ibb.co/n86htccF


And images I took of car park after receiving the ticket:

https://ibb.co/pBRjVZkM

https://ibb.co/zKpDYC9

https://ibb.co/xtBNvLKK

If you notice there isn't any difference - nothing was removed or changed on car park entrance.

Warning sign Operator uploaded to IAS appeal:

https://ibb.co/zTLY9Kzf

Part 2:

https://ibb.co/bMQDhW5s