Here is my defence, based on previous appeals. Please can you let me know if it's any good?
1. Preliminary & Clarification of Parties
The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle with registration mark [].
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any relief at all.
2. Response to Particulars of Claim
Paragraph 1 & 2: Lack of Service & Contradictory Timelines
Paragraphs 1 and 2 are denied. The Claimant states the date of the alleged contravention was 12/07/2025.
The Claimant asserted in subsequent correspondence that the first postal communication was issued on 16/07/2025. However, the Defendant never received any such original Notice to Keeper (NtK).
The only document received by the Defendant was a "Reminder Notice" dated 25/07/2025. The Claimant is put to strict proof to reconcile their administrative timeline and demonstrate that a compliant original NtK was lawfully served.
Paragraph 3: Driver Liability & Signage
Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the material time and is under no legal obligation to identify the driver to a private entity.
It is denied that any "prominently displayed terms" were breached. The signage at this location is restrictive, ambiguous, and contractually void (see Section 3 below).
Paragraph 4: Keeper Liability under PoFA 2012
Paragraph 4 is denied. The Claimant has failed to satisfy the strict statutory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4 to transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper.
Under PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(5), a mandatory 14-day window applies for the service of a Notice to Keeper where no parking ticket was given on the vehicle.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that an original, compliant NtK was generated and actually entered the postal system via independent evidence (e.g., a Royal Mail certificate of posting or franking manifest) to establish the presumption of service. A mere system printout or log from the Claimant's own database does not suffice. Without this, keeper liability cannot apply.
3. Substantive Defence Points
A. Breach of the Equality Act 2010 & Single Code of Practice
The vehicle was utilizing a designated disabled bay late in the evening to set down/collect a disabled occupant.
Under Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and the Equality Act 2010, parking operators have a strict statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments. This includes ensuring terms are visible at a lower/wheelchair-accessible level from disabled bays and ensuring clear guidance exists regarding concessions or additional time.
No readable terms or payment/registration terminals were visible or accessible from the disabled bay in question. Expecting a disabled motorist to navigate away from the bay to a remote, unlit, or inaccessible "reception" terminal constitutes unlawful indirect discrimination.
B. Uncertainty of Terms ("0 hours 0 minutes" Max Stay)
The Claimant’s paperwork dynamically states that a charge is triggered if a vehicle remains longer than a "0 hours 0 minutes max stay time".
A contractual term dictating a maximum stay of zero minutes is absurd, structurally impossible to comply with, and void for uncertainty.
Furthermore, the Claimant’s notices fail to identify a singular breach, instead providing a contradictory menu of mutually exclusive infractions (e.g., failed to pay vs. failed to input VRM vs. overstaying). Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (ss. 62 & 68), these terms lack core transparency and are unenforceable.
C. Forbidding Signage (No Contractual Offer)
The Claimant states that parking between 6:00 PM and 2:00 AM (Monday–Saturday) is strictly reserved for "Buzz Bingo patrons only."
If the driver was not a patron, the signage is entirely prohibitive and forms no contractual offer; it merely forbids parking. A breach of a forbidding sign sounds strictly in Trespass, for which only the actual landowner can sue for liquidated damages (which would be £0.00). The Claimant cannot invent a contractual fee where no contract was offered.
If the driver was a permitted patron, the issue lies entirely with the Claimant’s inaccessible terminal configuration and systemic failure to accommodate disabled motorists.
D. Artificial Inflation of the Claim (Abuse of Process)
The Claimant is claiming a principal sum of £170.00, representing the initial £100 parking charge artificially inflated by £70.00 described as "damages" or debt collection costs.
PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) explicitly caps the maximum sum recoverable from a registered keeper at the amount specified in the original Notice to Keeper (typically £100).
The addition of arbitrary "debt collection fees" or "damages" represents double recovery, violates the Civil Procedure Rules, and constitutes an abuse of the court process. The claim should be struck out on this basis alone.
4. Conclusion
The Claimant failed to engage with the Defendant’s formal appeal/complaint, refused to provide the requested evidence, and failed to issue a POPLA verification code as mandated by PPSCoP Clause 11.2 and 8.4.
The Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety and award the Defendant costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to the Claimant's unreasonable, predatory conduct and incoherent pleadings.
