DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 116606--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration,
<10 mins over paid time
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 21, 2026, 12:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Given you've already identified the driver, and clearly have
good knowledge of the events (in order to be able to tell you
have the basis of a sound meritorious defence), I'd be minded to
lead with this.
The 'generic' defence about vague particulars is (in my personal
opinion) best deployed when a defendant doesn't have any
stronger grounds to dispute. In my anecdotal experience, judges
often prefer to discuss the facts of the case than an overly
technical debate.
If you can show us a draft based on what you believe are your
grounds of defence, we can advise.
#Post#: 116618--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration,
<10 mins over paid time
DIR By: butchos12
Date: April 21, 2026, 1:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the steer, I'll get on it tonight
#Post#: 116736--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration,
<10 mins over paid time
DIR By: butchos12
Date: April 22, 2026, 2:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Right here we go (Parties etc complete in my original version).
most grateful for any thoughts/constructive criticsim:
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant
asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no
debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately
disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. The Defendant does not recall the content of any signage in
the vicinity of the car park and the Claimant is put to strict
proof as to the existence of any alleged contract, or the terms
of such a contract.
3. The Claimant’s case is very poorly particularised and
therefore it is impossible for the Defendant to respond properly
to. However, to assist the Court the Defendant admits and avers
the following facts:
(a.) It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the
vehicle XXXX XXX (‘the vehicle’) at the time of the
alleged contravention and that the vehicle was parked at St
Nicholas Street, Weymouth (‘the car park’).
(b.) It is admitted that on 7.5.22 the vehicle was parked in the
car park.
(c.) It is the Claimant’s case that the vehicle entered
the car park at 10:35:12AM. This is not disputed.
(d.) It is the Claimant’s case that the Defendant
purchased a £2 ticket at 10:39:50AM. The Defendant recalls using
a ‘pay and display’ machine within the car park. The
Defendant’s records confirm such a purchase at 10:39AM.
(e.) The Defendant recalls receiving a ticket from the machine.
The Defendant avers that this ticket would have indicated an
‘issue time’ and a required departure time of 2
hours after purchase, i.e. 12:39PM
(f.) It is the Claimant’s case that the Defendant exited
the car park at 12:49:25PM. 2 hours, 9m 25s after the ticket was
purchased. This is not disputed.
4. The Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association
(BPA). To the extent that any contact is established, the
Defendant avers that the terms are taken to include the Private
Parking Sector Single Code of Practice v1.1.
5. Table 1 of Annex B of this Code of Practice contains the
mandatory minimum consideration period and grace periods - 5
minutes, and 10 minutes respectively.
6. As a result, the Defendant avers that a minimum 5 minutes
consideration period should apply, and therefore the ticket was
purchased within such a period after entry to the car park at
12:35.
7. The mandatory minimum grace period of 10 minutes also
applied. For a ticket issued at 10:39:50, the grace period would
extent to 10:49:50. It is not in dispute that the Defendant had
left the car park by 10:49:25, within the grace period.
8. While the Defendant was within both the minimum consideration
period and minimum grace period, and therefore no extenuating
circumstances are required to be demonstrated, such extenuating
circumstances did exist, and were set out to the Claimant in
pre-action correspondence.
9. Taking the above into account, therefore, even to the extent
that the Court finds that a contract was established, no breach
of contract will be established. The Defendant purchased a
ticket within the consideration period. The Defendant exited
within the grace period.
10. In the alternative, there is a lack of precise detail in the
Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal
allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not
comply with CPR 16.4 and the Defendant is unable to plead
properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the
PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons)
why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract
(or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity
exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the
breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was
parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
11. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft
order approved by a district judge at another court. The court
struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining
that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4.
The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the
terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was
allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as
permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum
claimed, requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than
permitting an amendment.
12. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in
this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by
striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to
comply with CPR 16.4.
Costs
13. The Claimant has throughout the pre-action phase, been
unresponsive to communications, has refused to answer multiple
requests for clarification in accordance with the pre-action
protocol. The Claimant refused to allow the Defendant to discuss
the case with a lawyer. Had the Claimant cooperated in such
ways, it would have needed to acknowledge the above facts and
ought not to have issued the claim. The Defendant therefore
respectfully asks that the Court takes this into account and
utilises its discretion to award reasonable costs in favour of
the Defendant. A draft schedule of costs is attached.
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.
#Post#: 116739--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration,
<10 mins over paid time
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 22, 2026, 2:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A couple of points.
Firstly, you need to check the relevant Code of Practice for
your references. V1.1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code
of Practice came into effect in February 2025. The operator
can't reasonably be bound by a Code of Practice that didn't
exist at the time of the parking event. Find the BPA Code of
Practice that was in force at the time and use that.
You'll need to check exactly what the Code of Practice that was
in effect at the time says about Grace and Consideration
periods. In their current form, you don't get to add both
together to give you 15 minutes of extra time. The consideration
period is simply a period of time allowed for the motorist to
consider the terms on offer and leave if he doesn't accept them.
If he chooses to remain there, this is not added on to his
permitted time. The grace period is intended to account for the
time taken to do things such as find a space, pay, and then
leave at the end of the paid for period.
The operator's argument will be that you paid for 2 hours, and
spent 2 hours 14 in the car park.
I wonder if a more straightforward argument would be that you
relied in good faith on the time printed on the ticket. This
argument would be weak if you had (for example) purchased the
ticket an hour after parking, but doesn't seem like an
inherently unreasonable assumption when the ticket was purchased
less than 5 minutes after entry.
#Post#: 116743--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration,
<10 mins over paid time
DIR By: butchos12
Date: April 22, 2026, 2:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks DWMB.
And apologies - first point is a doh for me, as it was 2025, so
I'll amend.
Completely get the second point - I'll have another look. That's
what I was trying to get at by referring to the ticket, ie if
there's a contract then surely what's printed on the ticket
forms part of that contract. But admittedly I had assumed that
the consideration and grace periods were essentially
independent.
#Post#: 116749--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration,
<10 mins over paid time
DIR By: butchos12
Date: April 22, 2026, 4:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, I've tweaked to major on reasonable reliance on the time on
the ticket, while also setting out reasonableness of paying
within 5 mins.
I've included the claim for discretionary costs based on
unreasonable PAP conduct (and surprised myself with how much
time i've already spent on this...)
Fingers crossed, and thanks again for the input!
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page