URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 116842--------------------------------------------------
       UKPC -DCBL - B11 Birmingham Court Claim
   DIR By: Fazzy
       Date: April 23, 2026, 5:40 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       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:
  HTML 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.
       #Post#: 116857--------------------------------------------------
       Re: UKPC -DCBL - B11 Birmingham Court Claim
   DIR By: Dave65
       Date: April 24, 2026, 4:00 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Can you show the back of the PPN?
       If it is Dock area it may well be covered by bylaws.
       Also, lastly from one of the best previous posters it was said
       that do not pay UKPC a penny they will most likely discontinue
       the claim before paying the court fee.
       #Post#: 116871--------------------------------------------------
       Re: UKPC -DCBL - B11 Birmingham Court Claim
   DIR By: Fazzy
       Date: April 24, 2026, 5:51 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you.
       Here's the back :
  HTML https://ibb.co/XZMkNwdM
       #Post#: 116877--------------------------------------------------
       Re: UKPC -DCBL - B11 Birmingham Court Claim
   DIR By: jfollows
       Date: April 24, 2026, 7:32 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Could be under the Canal and River Trust, for example.
       #Post#: 116887--------------------------------------------------
       Re: UKPC -DCBL - B11 Birmingham Court Claim
   DIR By: Fazzy
       Date: April 24, 2026, 8:54 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       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.
       #Post#: 116888--------------------------------------------------
       Re: UKPC -DCBL - B11 Birmingham Court Claim
   DIR By: Fazzy
       Date: April 24, 2026, 8:55 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/M4tUhaqoD5gknxDw8?g_st=aw
       This is the google map view of where they were stopped.
       #Post#: 117060--------------------------------------------------
       Re: UKPC -DCBL - B11 Birmingham Court Claim
   DIR By: Fazzy
       Date: April 26, 2026, 3:19 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       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.
       #Post#: 117079--------------------------------------------------
       Re: UKPC -DCBL - B11 Birmingham Court Claim
   DIR By: Dave65
       Date: April 27, 2026, 3:53 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Do some searching online google etc for "Tyseley Wharf"
       #Post#: 117096--------------------------------------------------
       Re: UKPC -DCBL - B11 Birmingham Court Claim
   DIR By: Fazzy
       Date: April 27, 2026, 5:44 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       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:
       •
       •
       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:
       •
       •
       •
       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:
       •
       •
       •
       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:
       •
       •
       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:
       •
       •
       •
       •
       The claim is without merit and should be dismissed.
       #Post#: 117844--------------------------------------------------
       Re: UKPC -DCBL - B11 Birmingham Court Claim
   DIR By: Fazzy
       Date: May 5, 2026, 3:14 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Any advice before I lodge the defence? Should I instead copy and
       paste the template one?
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1