Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you for your input.

I will take out the bit about their claim and change the wording of “may” to “is”. I just wasn’t sure about stating “is”, which could invite questions as to how can I prove that.

So with the above changes, do you think I can go ahead and submit on MCOL website?

I have not clicked as far as defence submission page to see what the page/process looks like as I am wary that it says changes will be saved/submitted if I do that. So I just want to check if what I have provided here is acceptable in its current format to go ahead with submission?

Thank you

Thank you for the advice this far.

Here is a draft - being careful not to mention driver and only keeper:

—————————

The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim.

The Claimant alleges that a parking charge became payable following the parking of the vehicle at a location within the Forest of Bere near Wickham, namely the West Walk Car Park.

The Defendant understands that this site is managed by the Forestry Commission, of Forestry England.

Land managed by the Forestry Commission may be subject to the Forestry Commission Byelaws 1982, which were made pursuant to section 46 of the Forestry Act 1967.

The Forestry Commission Byelaws regulate behaviour on Forestry Commission land, including the use of vehicles and where vehicles may be driven or left.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 allows a parking operator to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle only where the parking occurred on “relevant land”.

Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of PoFA provides that “relevant land” does not include land on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

If the land in question is Forestry Commission land governed by statutory byelaws, then it is land where the parking of vehicles is subject to statutory control.

In such circumstances, the land is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The Claimant is therefore unable to rely upon Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability.

The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but the Claimant has provided no evidence as to the identity of the driver.
The Defendant is under no obligation to identify the driver and declines to do so.

In the absence of evidence as to the identity of the driver and with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 being inapplicable, the claim has no lawful basis against the Defendant as keeper.

The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that the land in question constitutes “relevant land” within the meaning of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The Defendant respectfully states that the claim is without merit and should therefore be dismissed.

—————————

Thank you for reading!

Thank you, I have submitted my AoS on MCOL today.

Unfortunately I don’t have the PCN anymore.

Appreciate the quote on “relevant land”.
What is my next move? How do I form this into a defence statement/document? Thanks again!

Hello

Incident date 19/06/2025

Upon entering the car park at Forest of Bere (West Walk) in Hampshire, the driver found a space, parked up and did not purchase a ticket. I, the registered keeper, did receive a PCN which was not responded to in any way. A claim form has now been received, issue date of 23/02/26 with the accompanying response pack (N9A, N9B etc).

I understand from having a read up a bit in the forum that there could be some recourse on the basis that a forestry bylaw determined that forestry England land is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA?

Image of claim form:

https://ibb.co/sdF9bTgV

I would be very grateful for any advice on how best to proceed.

Thank you