I've received the court claim a week or so ago and given Claude Fable came out this week I thought I'd drop all in there to see what advice it could give.
Let me know if you have any specific feedback. I'll check through and see if there's any hallucinations or stuff that makes sense but it feels like a tight defense to me. But the wording of it all is very... solicitor-y (this is probably a good thing though?)
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE
Claim No: NXXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
EURO CAR PARKS LIMITED (Claimant)
and
[DEFENDANT NAME] (Defendant)
_____________
DEFENCE
_____________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. Save where expressly admitted herein, each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is denied. The facts and matters set out below are within the Defendant's own knowledge except where otherwise indicated.
2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle bearing registration mark [VRM] ("the Vehicle"). No admission is made as to the identity of the driver of the Vehicle on 6 April 2025, and the Defendant has at no time identified the driver to the Claimant or its agents. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the identity of the driver.
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
3. The Claimant's own ANPR evidence, exhibited with its Notice to Keeper, records the Vehicle entering the site at Shoreditch High Street, London at 10:23:31 and leaving at 10:37:15 on 6 April 2025 a total period on site of under 14 minutes.
4. Without any admission as to the identity of the driver, the Defendant understands and avers the circumstances to be as follows: the driver entered the site intending to park and pay; the parking bays were tight and some minutes were spent manoeuvring into a space; upon alighting, the driver discovered that the site accepted only cashless/app payment; the driver attempted to use the payment app but it failed to load on their mobile telephone; being unable to pay, the driver returned to the Vehicle and promptly drove off the site, parking elsewhere. No period of parking under any purported contract ever commenced.
5. Accordingly, the driver never accepted any offer of parking terms alleged to have been made by signage. The driver did the precise opposite: on discovering that they could not comply with the terms, they declined them and left within minutes. It is trite law that a contract requires offer, acceptance and consideration; none of these elements is present. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the formation of any contract with the driver.
CONSIDERATION AND GRACE PERIODS
6. The Claimant is, as displayed on its own notices, a member of the British Parking Association ("BPA") Approved Operator Scheme and is bound by the BPA Code of Practice (and the applicable single Code of Practice for the private parking industry). The Code requires operators to allow a driver a reasonable consideration period to find a space, read the signage and decide whether to accept the terms, and a further grace period in which to leave the site if the driver decides not to stay. A total stay of under 14 minutes which on the facts comprised manoeuvring into a tight space, reading the terms, attempting and failing to make payment, and leaving falls within those periods. The charge was issued in breach of the Code of Practice, by which the Claimant's DVLA data access and operations are conditioned.
7. Further, ANPR entry and exit times do not record any "period of parking"; they record total time on site, including driving in, manoeuvring, attempting payment and queuing to exit. The Defendant relies on the persuasive appellate authority of Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016), in which it was held that a vehicle temporarily stopped is not "parked" for these purposes.
NO KEEPER LIABILITY UNDER THE PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012
8. The Claim is brought against the Defendant primarily "as the driver". That is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof, which it cannot provide: its ANPR images depict only the Vehicle. A registered keeper cannot be presumed, inferred or assumed to have been the driver, and the Defendant relies on the Claimant's own first-stage appeal rejection correspondence, which confirms the Claimant does not know the driver's identity.
9. In the alternative, the Claimant pleads keeper liability pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). Keeper liability arises only where the operator has complied strictly with all conditions of Schedule 4; partial or substantial compliance is insufficient. The Claimant has not complied, in that:
(a) No notice to driver was given under paragraph 7 (no windscreen ticket was affixed); the Claimant relied solely on a postal Notice to Keeper ("NTK") dated 14 April 2025. By paragraphs 9(4)(b) and 9(5) of Schedule 4, such an NTK must be delivered to the keeper within the relevant period of 14 days beginning with the day after the alleged event that is, by 20 April 2025 at the latest. The NTK was not delivered to the Defendant until 22 April 2025, outside the relevant period. Any presumption of delivery in the ordinary course of post is rebuttable and is rebutted; and
(b) The NTK fails to specify the "period of parking" as required by paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4, stating only ANPR camera entry and exit times, which (per paragraph 7 above and Jopson) are not the same thing.
10. Accordingly the conditions of Schedule 4 are not met and the Defendant, as keeper, cannot be liable. The Claim discloses no cause of action against the Defendant in either capacity pleaded.
QUANTUM: ABUSE OF PROCESS AND DOUBLE RECOVERY
11. The sum claimed of £170.00 plus interest and costs is denied in any event. The parking charge alleged was £100.00, as confirmed by the Claimant's own "Final Notification Letter" dated 1 July 2025 stating an outstanding balance of £100.00. The additional £70.00, described only as "damages" and/or "debt recovery costs", is an unparticularised, unincurred and unrecoverable mark-up.
12. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 the Supreme Court held that an £85 parking charge was enforceable only because it already covered the operator's costs of running its business, including recovery costs, and was not a recoverable loss. The further £70.00 therefore constitutes impermissible double recovery. County Courts have repeatedly struck out or disallowed identical add-ons in claims issued by the Claimant's solicitors and others as an abuse of process (see e.g. Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Jullien [2020] and the line of authorities following it), and such a charge is in any event an unfair term contrary to section 62 and Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out or disallow this element of the Claim of its own motion.
13. The claim for interest is also defective: the Claimant's Letter of Claim demanded interest at "8% above base rate" purportedly pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984, misstating the statutory provision. In any event, interest under section 69 is discretionary and ought to be refused where the underlying claim is misconceived and inflated.
INADEQUATE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
14. The Particulars of Claim are vague, generic and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16. They do not set out the wording of any signage terms relied upon, how and when any contract is said to have been formed or with whom, the "period of parking", any breakdown of the sum of £170.00, or the basis on which the Claimant (as opposed to the landowner) has standing to bring the Claim. The Defendant has been obliged to plead to a case that has not been properly set out, and reserves the right to amend this Defence upon proper particularisation.
STRICT PROOF REQUIRED
15. The Claimant is put to strict proof of: (i) its authority from the landowner to manage the land and to issue and litigate parking charges in its own name; (ii) the location, wording, size and legibility of the signage on 6 April 2025 and its compliance with the applicable Code of Practice; (iii) the formation of any contract with the driver; (iv) full compliance with Schedule 4 of POFA; and (v) each element of the sum claimed.
CONCLUSION
16. For the reasons set out above, the Claim is denied in its entirety and the Defendant invites the Court to dismiss the Claim, alternatively to strike it out as an abuse of process, and to award the Defendant his costs incurred in defending it.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
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.
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Signed: [NAME]
Defendant
Date: [DATE]
