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:
Image IMG 2191 hosted on ImgBB
I would be very grateful for any advice on how best to proceed.
Thank you
Anyone got any advice, please? Did I do something wrong to not get any reply? Thank you
If you still have the original PCN please post it up.
Given the issue date, I would log into MCOL and submit and Acknowledgement of Service to buy a little extra time.
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!
Land is not ‘relevant land’ if it’s covered by byelaws, such as ports and airports.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—
(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
(c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.
(2)In sub-paragraph (1)(b)—
“parking place” has the meaning given by section 32(4)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;
“traffic authority” means each of the following—
(a)
the Secretary of State;
(b)
the Welsh Ministers;
(c)
Transport for London;
(d)
the Common Council of the City of London;
(e)
the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district;
(f)
a parish or community council;
(g)
the Council of the Isles of Scilly.
(3)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question.
(4)In sub-paragraph (3) “statutory provision” means any provision (apart from this Schedule) contained in—
(a)any Act (including a local or private Act), whenever passed; or
(b)any subordinate legislation, whenever made,
and for this purpose “subordinate legislation” means an Order in Council or any order, regulations, byelaws or other legislative instrument [F1, but not byelaws made under section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Strategic Rail Authority, confirmed under Schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000 and preserved by section 46(4) of the Railways Act 2005].
Thank you for supplying the specific wording.
Are you able to assist me with what steps I take next and how I form this into a defence I can submit please?
I have completed the AoS and declared that I intend to defend the claim. Just not sure what to do next.
Any help is very much appreciated! Cheers.
So is this ‘relevant land’ or not?
I don’t know.
The Forestry Commission byelaws do regulate parking. With that in mind, if the car park forms part of the land governed by the byelaws, then it would seem not to be relevant land for the purposes of PoFA.
Take a look at some other defences on here to get a flavour for how they are written and see if you can draft something up on which we can offer comment. I would put the PoFA issue front and centre.
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!
Should I submit the above defence to MCOL?
Thank you
You could probably tighten up the wording.
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.
No need to repeat the claimant's claim for them.
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.
Not sure about your use of the word 'may' here - your case is presumably that the land
is subject to byelaws.
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
Looks good.
I would personally add one further point and place it second to last;
That given that the Claimant is unable to prove keeper liability and, with the driver not known by the Claimant, there is no legal route by which the Claimant can hold me liable (just to reenforce your previous point)
And a further point which could be placed nearer the top;
That this is a breach of contract issue, and, as such, there is absolutely no legal requitement for a vehicle keeper to identify a driver to an unregulated private parking operator - to be clear, I will not be nominating a driver under any circumstance.
There’s a “no” missing from the last paragraph above, isn’t there?
ImgBB 
Agree x 1
View List