Show Posts
1
Private parking tickets / Re: Contractual/ DBCL PCN
« on: February 23, 2026, 03:00:12 pm »
Please can someone kindly have a look. Is this okay to be sent? Many thanks.
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Defendant was not the driver on the material date and the Claimant is put to strict proof of driver identity.
3. The Particulars of Claim are sparse and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16. The claim does not clearly state the contractual terms allegedly breached nor how the sum of £170 has been calculated.
4. The Claimant alleges that the vehicle was “Parked and Left Site.” The Defendant denies that any such breach occurred. The Claimant is put to strict proof that:
a) Clear and prominent signage was in place defining the boundaries of the “site”;
b) The signage clearly stated that leaving the site would result in a parking charge;
c) The driver was observed leaving the site;
d) The individual observed was the driver of the vehicle;
e) The Claimant has lawful authority from the landowner to enforce such a term.
5. The allegation of “leaving the site” is vague, subjective and incapable of forming a clear contractual obligation. Any such term would require exceptionally clear and prominent signage to be enforceable.
6. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to pursue the registered keeper. In the absence of strict compliance, the Defendant cannot be held liable as keeper.
7. The claim includes an additional sum beyond the advertised parking charge. The £70 added to the principal charge is an attempt at double recovery and is not recoverable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 nor under CPR 27.14. The Defendant avers that this is an abuse of process.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has standing to bring this claim and that a valid contract existed between the Claimant and the driver.
9. The Defendant distinguishes this matter from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. In that case, clear signage and a legitimate commercial justification were present. The facts in this case are materially different.
10. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike out or dismiss the claim.
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Defendant was not the driver on the material date and the Claimant is put to strict proof of driver identity.
3. The Particulars of Claim are sparse and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16. The claim does not clearly state the contractual terms allegedly breached nor how the sum of £170 has been calculated.
4. The Claimant alleges that the vehicle was “Parked and Left Site.” The Defendant denies that any such breach occurred. The Claimant is put to strict proof that:
a) Clear and prominent signage was in place defining the boundaries of the “site”;
b) The signage clearly stated that leaving the site would result in a parking charge;
c) The driver was observed leaving the site;
d) The individual observed was the driver of the vehicle;
e) The Claimant has lawful authority from the landowner to enforce such a term.
5. The allegation of “leaving the site” is vague, subjective and incapable of forming a clear contractual obligation. Any such term would require exceptionally clear and prominent signage to be enforceable.
6. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to pursue the registered keeper. In the absence of strict compliance, the Defendant cannot be held liable as keeper.
7. The claim includes an additional sum beyond the advertised parking charge. The £70 added to the principal charge is an attempt at double recovery and is not recoverable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 nor under CPR 27.14. The Defendant avers that this is an abuse of process.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has standing to bring this claim and that a valid contract existed between the Claimant and the driver.
9. The Defendant distinguishes this matter from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. In that case, clear signage and a legitimate commercial justification were present. The facts in this case are materially different.
10. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike out or dismiss the claim.
