Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

I'm helping my sister who is the registered keeper and has received the court claim. I thought I had posted the initial PCN previously but I cant find that post anywhere.

Driver and a passenger were driving in this spot when driver felt ill so the driver/passenger switched. This took 1min 39 seconds according to the PCN.

The original PCN and appeal rejection along with claim forms are all on here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5ckb6eg15n2w65og3jise/BirminghamClaim_redacted.pdf?rlkey=s8eucra9hhqqgesvd4788262j&st=jlpa0s4i&dl=0

The original appeal was as below. We didnt bother with POPLA.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
I dispute your ‘parking charge’ as the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement, and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client, the landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving, and no assumptions can be drawn. Your PCN appears to be a vague template. I therefore require a full explanation of the allegation, together with your evidence. This must include:

A close-up, dated photograph of the specific sign you contend was displayed at the location on the material date.

All images and/or video footage of the vehicle relied upon.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay, your evidence must also include the actual grace period agreed with the landowner.

For your information, the driver briefly stopped due to feeling unwell, and the passenger resumed driving shortly afterwards, which is evident from your own images/video.

Please cancel this PCN promptly or I will be happy to take the matter to court.
I look forward to your prompt response
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Date of Issue is 20/04/2026

I will do the acknowledgement on the 26th April and I'd like to get the defence prepared and ready for my sister as I will be away from 15th May for 2 weeks.

I'm reading my way through the template defence post and will start typing up. Any case specific advice will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Here's the back :

Google says this:

Tyseley Wharf is a place on the waterways on the Grand Union Canal (Warwick and Birmingham Canal: widened section - Main Line) between Kingswood Junction (Junction of Grand Union and Stratford upon Avon Canals) (11 miles and 6¼ furlongs and 5 locks to the southeast) and Camp Hill Top Lock Winding Hole (Services no longer available) (2 miles and 2¾ furlongs to the west).
 
 
The nearest place in the direction of Kingswood Junction is Stockfield Road Bridge No 87; 1¾ furlongs away.
 
The nearest place in the direction of Camp Hill Top Lock Winding Hole is Kings Road Footbridge No 88A; 3¼ furlongs away.
There is access (suitable for wheels) to the towpath here.
Mooring here is tolerable (it's just about possible if really necessary). The short wharf is just-about suitable to tie-up a narrowboat for a visit.

Is there any other way of confirming if its byelaw applicable here? As I'm guessing my defence would need to be different if it is? I have just done the AOS and will start drafting the defence copy and paste jobs.

After reading all the google pages, to the best of my ability (which is limited in terms of parking laws), I will say this is a private industrial land and not subject to any byelaws. Chatgpt has typed up the below defence using the template from newbies. Please can anyone look over and let me know if this is good to post or should I copy and paste the original template instead?

DEFENCE
1.
The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to state all facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action.
Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge. This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 confirmed that a parking charge already includes the costs of enforcement. Any additional sums are therefore unrecoverable. The court is invited to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4.
________________________________________
2.
The allegation is vague and liability is denied in full. The Defendant admits only to being the registered keeper of the vehicle.
The Defendant was not the driver at the material time and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity. The Defendant is under no obligation to name the driver.
________________________________________
3. No Keeper Liability
The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The Notice to Keeper is non-compliant and fails to establish keeper liability. Accordingly, the Claimant cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the Defendant.
In the absence of full compliance with POFA, the claim against the registered keeper must fail.
________________________________________
4. The Facts – No Parking Event / Medical Necessity
The Defendant understands that the vehicle was stopped for approximately 1 minute and 39 seconds only.
This was not “parking” but a brief stop due to the driver feeling unwell, requiring the passenger to take over driving for safety reasons.
The Claimant’s own photographic evidence shows the driver’s door open, supporting that this was a transient, emergency-related stop rather than a parked vehicle.
Such a situation amounts to:
•   A temporary interruption, not parking, and
•   A necessity/safety stop, which cannot reasonably form a contractual breach
No reasonable parking operator could interpret this as acceptance of parking terms.
________________________________________
5. No Contract Formed / Inadequate Signage
It is denied that any contract was formed.
A contract requires offer, acceptance and consideration. A driver who stops briefly due to illness cannot be said to have read, understood, and accepted contractual terms.
The signage is put to strict proof of:
•   Visibility,
•   Prominence, and
•   Ability to be read within seconds.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires fairness and transparency. Any alleged terms in this case fail that test.
________________________________________
6. No Legitimate Interest – Distinguished from Beavis
The Claimant cannot rely on ParkingEye v Beavis.
In that case, a clear overstay in a retail car park created a legitimate interest.
Here:
•   The stop was under 2 minutes
•   No parking space was occupied for any meaningful time
•   The stop arose from illness and safety concerns
This is a trivial, unavoidable event, not misuse of parking facilities.
Any charge in these circumstances is punitive and unconscionable.
________________________________________
7. Lack of Landowner Authority
The Claimant is put to strict proof of full landowner authority to:
•   Issue parking charges, and
•   Pursue litigation.
This must include a contemporaneous contract and defined site boundaries.
________________________________________
8. Abuse of Process – Inflated Claim
The added costs are unrecoverable and constitute double recovery.
The court is invited to strike out or disallow these sums.
________________________________________
9. POFA – Maximum Sum Exceeded
Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the claim exceeds the maximum recoverable sum.
The Claimant is not entitled to recover more than the original parking charge.
________________________________________
10. Conclusion
The Claimant has failed to establish:
•   Keeper liability
•   Driver identity
•   A valid contract
•   A legitimate interest
The claim is without merit and should be dismissed.