Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi All,

On 16th of January 2025 I have received a PCN from Parkmaven amounting to £100.

It appeared that the letter received was the 2nd letter they sent as the original fee would have been £60, that means more than 14 days would have passed at the time of receiving what should have been the 2nd letter.

The problem is that I have never received the first letter issued by them, which should have been issued in December 2024.

I have communicated with Parkmaven via e-mail and I explained that I have not received the first letter. The parking for which the PCN was issued was also supposed top be free for the first 2 hrs if the customer would have spent £10 or more in ASDA, one of the retailers in the shopping area (The Centre Feltham), and it happened that I have been to ASDA that day and spent £29. From what I read on the shopping centre website I believe you were supposed to scan the ASDA receipt to the parking payment machine or something. Unfortunately I have not taken the receipt being unaware, therefore I have not scanned or paid anything. I am aware and I understand why some of you would accuse me that I should have paid attention and if I did not take the receipt, then I should have paid the parking, and I agree! I usually do that, I pay my parking where needed, never tried to dodge one.

I was the first time when I visited that shopping centre in Feltham (together with my wife and my 7 yrs old son) for a return to Dunelm, then I popped in to ASDA for a quick grocery shop, then hurry to the car and go as it was an extremely windy day - That's my only excuse, I genuinely did not realised that it was a private / paid for parking.

I have mentioned to Parkmaven that I have been an ASDA customer that day and offered to send the proof of purchase (bank statement). They have replied that that their records show that the first letter has been sent on 13/12/24. They have also said that as 28 days from the first letter passed I am no longer able to make an appeal.

They have also said that : "Unfortunately, once a letter has been dispatched, we cannot take responsibility for its delivery." - and in my mind this admission, was supposed to be my line of defence in case things will be escalated.

They have offered to reset the 14 days for the reduced fee charge so they reduced the fine to £60 again - and some or most of you would probably say that I should have taken that and get rid of the headaches - I am telling myself the same thing now.

Anyway I have refused and asked them politely to reset the 28 days appeal period, as I wanted to submit a formal appeal, thinking that I should have a shot giving the fact I had proof of shopping in ASDA (the bank statement proof) - that might be stupid but I read some local forums where people had the same issue at that shopping centre and they have filed an appeal using the bank statement proof and their PCN's were cancelled.

Moving forward, on the 5th of February I have sent a formal and polite e-mail asking that the appeal deadline would be reconsidered so I would have a fair chance to appeal this charge, considering the fact that I have never received the first letter issued and having them admitting via e-mail that they do not have a proof of delivery.

After this I have contacted Parkmaven on another 4 occasions via e-mail requesting an answer to my e-mail sent on the 5th of February where I asked a reconsideration of the appeal deadline.

I have only received automated messages that my request has been received and it will be reviewed by the support team, but it has never been reviewed.

Next time when Parkmaven responded or contacted me was through DCBL - via Debt Recovery Letter - asking me to pay £170. I have probably received 5 or 6 of those reminders and this time to be honest I have ignored them as I felt it was unfair that Parkmaven did not answer to my request/s and was probably thinking or hopping that they will bloody stop sending reminders, plus also thinking that I would rather go to court before paying £170.

Now of course I think I should have paid the £60 when I had the chance and avoid months of stress.

Last communication via post was when I received the Claim Form, issued on 16/07/2025

They are requesting £177 - Parkmaven (the £170 DCBL asked for plus interest)

£35 - Court Fee

£50 - Legal Representative costs

Total £262

Reason I wrote all this long story is because I have no idea what to do and I certainly would not want to pay what they claim. I would like to ask for any advice if any of you have been in this situation or if you think I would have a shot in Court, my claim being that I have been an Asda customer that day and I wanted to have a right to appeal.

Any advice positive or negative is appreciated, thank you!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Follow thew advice here and you will not be paying a penny to ParkMaven. With an issue date of 16th July, you have until 4pm on Monday 4th August to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 18th August to submit your defence.

If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

You only need to do the AoS if you need extra time to file your defence.

Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.

You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 65 characters per line and 122 lines limit.

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant
asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no
debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately
disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim
(PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply
with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the
PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3(1);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause
(or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons)
why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract
(or contracts);

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly
where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach
occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked
before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out
similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately
comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of
Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or
explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found
that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant
submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites
the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with
CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant
proposes that the following Order be made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because:
(a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause
(or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which
is (or are) relied on; and
(b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why
the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of
contract.

AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it
served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have
done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.

AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the
court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with
the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share
of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of
claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals
to the judge for case management.

ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.

Follow thew advice here and you will not be paying a penny to ParkMaven. With an issue date of 16th July, you have until 4pm on Monday 4th August to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 18th August to submit your defence.

If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

You only need to do the AoS if you need extra time to file your defence.

Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.

You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 65 characters per line and 122 lines limit.

Quote

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant
asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no
debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately
disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim
(PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply
with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the
PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3(1);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause
(or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons)
why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract
(or contracts);

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly
where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach
occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked
before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out
similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately
comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of
Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or
explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found
that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant
submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites
the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with
CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant
proposes that the following Order be made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because:
(a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause
(or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which
is (or are) relied on; and
(b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why
the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of
contract.

AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it
served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have
done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.

AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the
court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with
the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share
of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of
claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals
to the judge for case management.

ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.

b789 thank you! As I did not manage to log onto MCOL I have sent the AoS via email to aos.cnbc@justice.gov.uk
Eventually managed to log on MCOL once and the message said that a bar has been put in place on the claim and that I cannot respond to the claim at this time. I tried to log in again and I was not able saying that my user or password are wrong (I have 100% used the correct details) - that makes me think that there might be an issue with MCOL.
I have sent the AoS via email to aos.cnbc@justice.gov.uk

Regarding the defence and thank you for posting it, shouldn't I highlight that I never received the first letter from the claimant, and because of that I was not allowed to submit an appeal as the appeal period passed in their view? Also, Parkmaven admitted via e-mail that they do not have a proof of delivery for the letter. Also the 2hrs free parking offered for ASDA customers? I was under the impression that these would be actually be helpful for the defence statement?

Regarding sending the defence statement I was advised by a gov.uk tel support agent to send the defence to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk

After the first time you log into MCOL, any subsequent log in is via your Government Gateway. You can email MCOLITassistance@justice.gov.uk with:


Did you submit an AoS? Did you follow the instructions to the letter in the linked PDF on how to submit the AoS? If you did not submit your defence or at least an AoS by 4pm on Monday 4th August, then the “bar has been put in place” message typically means the claimant has requested a default judgment or the claim has progressed to a stage where online responses are restricted.

If you didn't submit an AoS by the date above, why not?

As for your questions above the defence, you have been advised what to put in it. Anything else, should it ever proceed all the way to a hearing and the claimant submits their Witness Statement, then you can rebut their allegations with all the detail you have questioned.

For example: "Also, Parkmaven admitted via e-mail that they do not have a proof of delivery for the letter". Of course they DON'T have proof of delivery if they didn't use a recorded delivery service, which they don't. However, if they claim it was posted, you can put them to proof that it was in fact posted by way of a "proof of posting" certificate or equivalent.

The rebuttable presumption of posting arises from Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, which states:


The rebuttable presumption under the Interpretation Act does not magically shift the burden of proof onto the defendant. The claimant must first establish the foundational facts—that the notice was:


Only then does the presumption kick in. And even then, it’s rebuttable, meaning the defendant’s credible denial of receipt can defeat it, especially if the claimant cannot produce evidence of posting.

Anyway, back to the main question... Did you submit an AoS before 4pm on Monday 4th August?

As long as you submitted the AoS before the deadline, then you still have until 4pm on Monday 18th August to submit the defence. It doesn't matter when the AoS is submitted, as long as it is before the deadline. Even if the AoS is submitted the day after you receive the claim, it extends the deadline for defence submission to 28 days from the date of service, which is 5 days after the issue date. If the 28th day falls on a weekend or bank holiday, then the deadline is extended to 4pm on the next working day.

As you are now going to submit the defence, I advise you to do so using the following information:

You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.

When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF attachment and send as an attachment in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of Parkmaven Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Parkmaven Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3(1);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:

(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;

(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;

(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).

(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.

5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:


Date:

Draft Order for the defence

Hi again,
I have received an ackowledgment of defence letter from HM Courts.
They are also stating that a copy of my defence will be sent to the claimant and the claimant may or not contact me to resolve the dispute or the claimant could inform the court that they wish to proceed.
Is there anything that I can or should do at this stage?..
Are there any chances that the claimant will drop this or they usually proceed.

Here's the actual text of the letter:

"I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served on the claimant (or the claimant's solicitor).
The claimant may contact you direct to attempt to resolve any dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally, the claimant will inform the court that he wishes to proceed. The court will then inform you of what will happen.
Where he wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receiving a copy of your defence. After that period has elapsed, the claim will be stayed. The only action the claimant can then take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay"

Any help is welcome!

Thank you very much! I did recently receive the N180 questionnaire.
What a headache indeed! Bureaucracy at its best!