Free Traffic Legal Advice

my driving license has since been updated

Subject: Claim No: [XXXXXXX] – Filing of Defence pursuant to Order dated 7 July 2025

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached the Defence in the above matter, filed in compliance with the Order of District Judge Napier dated 7 July 2025.

This document has also been served on the Claimant’s legal representative.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BRISTOL

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Vehicle Control Services Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies entering into any contract with the Claimant and denies any breach of any enforceable terms. The claim is inadequately pleaded in breach of CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 paragraph 7.3. It is unsupported by evidence, fails to disclose a valid cause of action, and is legally misconceived. The Defendant respectfully invites the court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) or to dismiss it in its entirety.

2. The Particulars of Claim are inadequately pleaded and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 paragraph 7.3. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the PoC allege that the Defendant is pursued either as the driver or, in the alternative, as the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The Claimant has failed to plead the wording of any contractual term alleged to have been breached. It merely states a “reason” — “Stopping TO Pick UP/Drop Off In A Restricted Zone” — which is not a contract term. This does not disclose any intelligible cause of action in contract.

3. The Claimant has not complied with CPR PD 16 paragraph 7.3(1), which requires that where a claim is based on a written agreement, the contract or the relevant parts of it must be attached or set out. The Claimant has failed to provide a copy of any signage or state the wording that forms the alleged contract. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of the exact contractual terms said to have been offered and accepted.

4. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration WF14WUO. The Defendant has not been identified as the driver. There is no legal obligation on the keeper to identify the driver, and no such identification has been made. The burden of proof remains with the Claimant. In Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Mark Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], HHJ Hennessy confirmed that no adverse inference may be drawn against a Defendant in respect of driver identity without clear evidence.

5. The land in question — Bristol Airport — is subject to statutory control under airport byelaws. Accordingly, it is not “relevant land” within the meaning of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. PoFA cannot apply, and the Claimant is barred in law from holding the registered keeper liable. Without driver identification, the claim must fail.

6. Furthermore, the Defendant asserts that the signage at Bristol Airport is prohibitive in nature, using wording to the effect of “No Stopping at Any Time”. A prohibitory notice is not capable of forming a contract. This principle was confirmed in the persuasive appeal decision in PCM UK v Bull (2016) [B4GF26K6], where the court found that a sign stating “Strictly No Parking” was a prohibition, not an offer, and could not form the basis of a contract. No contractual liability can arise from a notice that forbids the very act it penalises.

7. The Claimant’s own CCTV stills show the vehicle lawfully stopped at a red light at a pedestrian crossing on a roadway within Bristol Airport. The vehicle was stationary in compliance with traffic control regulations, and all other traffic is visibly stopped in both directions. While the vehicle was waiting for the light to change, a third party — not the driver or keeper — independently approached and entered the vehicle. The Claimant does not allege that the driver solicited this person, nor can a driver be held liable for the autonomous actions of another adult during a lawful traffic stop. There is no breach of contract or contravention of any kind in stopping at a red light, and no contractual liability can arise from the incidental boarding of a passenger under such circumstances.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it holds valid and contemporaneous authority from the landowner to issue charges at the precise location where the vehicle was recorded as stopping. This authority must specifically cover the act of stopping (as distinct from parking), and must include the power to issue and enforce penalty-style charges for alleged traffic control breaches such as pausing at a red light. The land in question is subject to statutory control under airport byelaws, which may restrict or prohibit such delegation. A generic site agreement or parking management contract is not sufficient. The Defendant requires disclosure of an unredacted contract showing that the Claimant was expressly authorised to issue charges of the kind alleged at the material time and location. Without such evidence, the Claimant lacks standing and the claim is fatally flawed.

9. The additional £70 added to the £100 parking charge is an unrecoverable sum presented as “damages” or “costs.” It is not contractually owed, and no legal basis for it has been pleaded. This constitutes double recovery and is an abuse of process. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (2020) [G4QZ465V], the court struck out a similar claim for this reason.

10. In the alternative, and without prejudice to the primary submission that the claim is fatally defective in form and unsupported by evidence, the Defendant denies any contractual liability for the brief and lawful stop described. No breach occurred, no enforceable contract was formed, and the Claimant has failed to establish any legal entitlement to the sum claimed. The Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed.

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: