I've now filed the Acknowledgment of Service. I've also asked ChatGPT to put together a first draft Defence based on the points discussed here and the evidence/documents.
I'd appreciate any comments or corrections before I file it. Thanks!
DRAFT DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or to any sum at all.
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the material time. The Claimant pleads that the Defendant is pursued as driver and/or keeper and expressly relies upon Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA"). The Claimant is required to prove the basis upon which it alleges that the Defendant is liable.
INADEQUATE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
3. The Particulars of Claim ("PoC") fail adequately to identify the alleged contractual breach. They state only that the vehicle "breached the terms on the signs", without identifying the term allegedly breached or the conduct said to constitute that breach.
4. The Defendant submits that the PoC therefore fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), which requires a concise statement of the facts relied upon. Further, where a contract is alleged to have been formed by conduct, Practice Direction 16 paragraph 7.5 requires the conduct relied upon, and by whom, when and where the relevant acts occurred, to be specified.
5. The Defendant relies upon the persuasive County Court appeal decision in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref E7GM9W44, 15 August 2023), in which HHJ Murch held that particulars which failed to identify the conduct constituting the alleged contractual breach were inadequately pleaded. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4 or otherwise require the Claimant properly to particularise its case.
NO KEEPER LIABILITY UNDER SCHEDULE 4 POFA
6. In the alternative, insofar as the Claimant seeks to recover the parking charge from the Defendant as registered keeper, the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 PoFA.
7. Paragraph 9(2)(e) requires a Notice to Keeper to state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to invite the keeper either:
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver, to provide the name and current address for service of the driver and to pass the notice to the driver.
8. ParkingEye's Notice to Keeper does not invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge as required by paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Instead, it states that the driver is required to pay and tells the keeper, if not the driver, to provide the driver's details and pass the notice to them. That is not the statutory invitation to the keeper to pay required by paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
9. Compliance with the conditions in Schedule 4 is required before the statutory right to recover an unpaid parking charge from a keeper arises. Accordingly, the Claimant has not established keeper liability.
THE SUM CLAIMED
10. Further and in any event, the Notice to Keeper demanded £100 and the Claimant's own evidence subsequently recorded both the current value and outstanding balance as £100. The Claimant's court proceedings nevertheless commence with a principal sum of £170, before interest and court costs.
11. Paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 4 PoFA provides that the maximum sum recoverable from a keeper by virtue of the statutory keeper-liability provisions is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper. Accordingly, insofar as this claim is pursued against the Defendant as keeper, the additional £70 is denied and the Claimant is required to establish a lawful basis for it.
CLAIMANT'S AUTHORITY TO OPERATE AT THE MATERIAL TIME
12. The Claimant relies upon an agreement with AMSRIC Foods Limited dated 23 March 2021. The agreement defines its "Initial Period" as commencing on the Services Commencement Date and expiring after 36 months. The Initial Period therefore expired before the parking event on 13 August 2024.
13. Clause 5 provides for subsequent 12-month extensions, but expressly states that continuation during any Extended Term is "subject to Clause 13". Clause 13 of the agreement disclosed by the Claimant has been redacted in its entirety.
14. The Defendant does not assert that the agreement necessarily terminated at the end of the Initial Period. Rather, the Claimant bears the burden of establishing that it possessed the necessary authority at the material time. By redacting the clause to which continuation of the agreement is expressly subject, the Claimant has not disclosed the complete contractual terms necessary to establish that the agreement remained in force on 13 August 2024. The Claimant is therefore required to prove that it possessed authority to enter into parking contracts and pursue parking charges at the material time.
NO CONTRACTUAL OFFER TO PARK AT THE MATERIAL TIME
15. The Claimant's own evidence states that the parking terms were a maximum two-hour free stay between 10am and 11pm. The signage expressly stated:
"NO PARKING OUTSIDE OF THESE TIMES".
The Claimant's ANPR evidence records the vehicle entering at 09:12, before parking was permitted.
16. The Defendant denies that, at that time, the signage communicated an offer of a contractual licence to park capable of acceptance by the driver. Rather, the prominent wording expressly prohibited parking outside the stated hours.
17. The Defendant is aware of the County Court appeal judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ozog [2026] EWCC 12. That decision does not establish that prohibitory wording necessarily creates a contract in every case. On the facts of Ozog, the Court found that the signage and circumstances permitted the inference that the claimant granted the motorist access to private land, which constituted a valuable benefit capable of amounting to consideration.
18. The circumstances here are materially different. ParkingEye's own signage expressly states "NO PARKING OUTSIDE OF THESE TIMES". The Claimant is therefore required to establish what contractual licence or other valuable benefit it says was offered to the driver at 09:12, when its displayed terms expressly prohibited parking, and how a contract to pay £100 was thereby formed.
19. For the reasons set out above, the Defendant denies that the Claimant has established any liability and respectfully asks the Court to dismiss the claim.
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.