DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 129570--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: Tarli
Date: September 4, 2026, 6:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is great, thanks for breaking it down.
Yes the claim form states ‘pursued as the driver’ and ‘pursued
as the keeper’, fantastic!
Should I include any evidence with my response, such as the
document from the lease company confirming I am the hirer or a
lease agreement?
Thanks for your help, massively appreciate it!
#Post#: 129573--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 4, 2026, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You will, eventually.
We're talking about your defence, not your more detailed witness
statement.
I suggest you look up the difference between a defence and
witness statement in civil claims.
IMO, your statement that you were not the keeper should include
that in fact you were the hirer under a X-year lease with *****
commencing on ***.
I wouldn't include the actual lease docs with your defence, but
others may have views.
On receipt of your defence(it would be copied to the claimant)
they should have the wit to think, b****r, we've c***ed-up! But
don't hold your breath.
#Post#: 129576--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 4, 2026, 7:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's not major, but I'd be tempted to strengthen some of the
language in the defence. There's a lot of "The Claimant is put
to strict proof..." - this is fine, but some of these could be
started with denials on your part.
For example, rather than putting them to strict proof that they
complied with the aspects of PoFA relating to hire vehicles, you
could start by denying that the claimant has done this, then put
them to proof if they disagree.
I disagree with the suggestion to leave out the fact you were
the hirer from the defence. I'm all for brevity, but it's a
relevant point in favour of your case, and I can't see what
advantage is to be gained by leaving it out until your witness
statement. Judges like an easy life - if they can get all of the
salient points from your defence, without having to spend too
much time leafing through Witness Statements and speaking to the
litigants, all the better.
#Post#: 129577--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 4, 2026, 8:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=103]DWMB2[/member], I can see how my last post might
have been misinterpreted and I agree with your point.
For the avoidance of doubt, 'this' referred to the lease
documents, not the defence point about being the lessee.
I have amended accordingly.
#Post#: 129791--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: Tarli
Date: September 7, 2026, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for all the advice so far. I’ve amended my defence based
on the guidance provided and would really appreciate it if you
could review it below and let me know your thoughts.
I’ve also taken some time to understand the process and have
worked through the MCOL portal, so I’m now clearer on what needs
to be submitted at each stage. I’m hoping to file my defence in
the next few days, subject to any final feedback.
Couple of questions,
1. If the claim is dismissed because I was neither the driver
nor the keeper, would they be able to bring a fresh claim using
the correct documents or against another party, or would that
normally bring the matter to an end?
2. From my research, I understand that I cannot introduce a new
defence later in my witness statement if it was not pleaded in
my original defence. With that in mind, should I also include my
alternative argument about the cancellation through the swimming
provider and the supporting evidence?
I have included those points from 13 onwards, but I can remove
them if they do not add value.
My thinking was to include all potentially relevant grounds now
and provide the fuller evidence in my witness statement,
although I appreciate that may not be the best approach. I’d be
grateful for your advice.
TIA
Defence draft
1. The Defendant denies the claim in full.
2. The Particulars of Claim say that the Defendant was the
driver. This is denied. The Defendant was not driving on the
material date and has already told the Claimant and its
representatives this.
3. The Particulars of Claim also say that the Defendant is being
pursued as keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012. The Defendant denies that the Claimant has established
a right to pursue the Defendant on that basis.
4. The Claimant’s case is unclear because it says the Defendant
is liable both as driver and as keeper. The Claimant must
clearly explain and prove the legal basis on which it says the
Defendant is liable.
5. The vehicle was a company/lease vehicle held under a
four-year agreement with XXXX from XXXX. The original notice was
sent to XXXX, not directly to the Defendant.
6. XXXX later provided the Defendant’s details to ParkingEye.
This identified the Defendant only as the hirer of the vehicle,
not as the driver or registered keeper.
7. The Defendant does not accept liability as keeper under
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and denies
that liability was lawfully transferred from the driver.
8. The Defendant denies that the Claimant followed the mandatory
requirements of Schedule 4 needed to hold a vehicle hirer
liable. If the Claimant says it did, it must prove full
compliance with the rules for hire vehicles.
9. The Defendant denies receiving a valid Notice to Hirer,
together with all documents required by Schedule 4, within the
relevant legal time limits.
10. The Defendant also denies receiving direct correspondence
from ParkingEye confirming that the charge was still
outstanding, that any cancellation had not been actioned, that
the amount had increased, or that the matter would be escalated.
11. In the alternative, the driver and vehicle occupants were
genuine users of the Holiday Inn facilities and understood they
were permitted to park, subject to entering the vehicle
registration at reception.
12. The driver made a genuine attempt to comply with that
process. If the registration was entered incorrectly, the
Defendant’s position is that this was, at most, a minor keying
error affecting a single character rather than unauthorised
parking.
13. After the original charge was issued, the Defendant
challenged it through the swimming lesson provider, who
escalated the matter to Holiday Inn. Evidence was provided
showing genuine use of the hotel facilities.
14. The Defendant then received WhatsApp confirmation from the
swimming lesson provider that the charge had been cancelled. The
Defendant reasonably relied on that confirmation, believed the
matter was resolved, and did not pursue a further appeal within
the appeal window.
15. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the alleged breach,
including the relevant registration terminal records and whether
a near-match registration was entered on the material date.
16. The Defendant also disputes the additional sums claimed
above the original parking charge and puts the Claimant to
strict proof that those sums are contractually and legally
recoverable.
17. Without full compliance with Schedule 4, the Claimant cannot
transfer the driver’s liability to the Defendant as hirer or
keeper.
18. For those reasons, the Defendant denies liability and asks
the Court to dismiss the claim.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page