DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 131602--------------------------------------------------
County Court Claim - Town Quay Southampton - Keeper Only -
Incident 2020
DIR By: obt0325
Date: September 28, 2026, 8:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello everyone,
I have received a formal County Court claim form from HMCTS and
need some guidance drafting my defence.
Here are the key details of the claim:
- Claimant: ParkingEye
- Location: Town Quay, Southampton
- Date of Incident: 23/12/2020
- Issue Date of Claim Form: 10/09/2026
- Current Status: I have already successfully submitted my
Acknowledgment of Service (AOS) on MCOL today, intending to
defend in full. My calculated defence deadline is Tuesday, 13th
October 2026.
My Position:
- I am defending this strictly as the Registered Keeper of the
vehicle.
- I was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident.
- I ignored the original letters years ago, so I have no
physical evidence, letters, or tickets from 2020.
- I understand that Town Quay is covered by statutory ABP
Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003, meaning it is not "relevant
land" under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(PoFA), and therefore there is no lawful mechanism for keeper
liability.
Given that the claimant has waited nearly the full 6 years under
the Limitation Act to issue this, I want to ensure my defence is
watertight regarding the byelaws exemption.
Could anyone please provide or direct me to the latest robust
template paragraphs for a Town Quay byelaws / keeper-only
defence?
Thank you in advance for your help.
#Post#: 131610--------------------------------------------------
Re: County Court Claim - Town Quay Southampton - Keeper Only -
Incident 2020
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 28, 2026, 9:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Defences need to respond to the relevant particulars of claim.
To that end, we seldom recommend template defences. Please show
us the first page of the Claim Form (the one containing the
Particulars), and anything you have drafted so far. It would
also be good to know where the car was parked.
Are PE running the claim themselves, or using a third party
legal firm like DCB Legal?
#Post#: 131618--------------------------------------------------
Re: County Court Claim - Town Quay Southampton - Keeper Only -
Incident 2020
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 28, 2026, 11:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, please show us what you’re talking about per
HTML http://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
Your dates seem correct to me.
#Post#: 131663--------------------------------------------------
Re: County Court Claim - Town Quay Southampton - Keeper Only -
Incident 2020
DIR By: obt0325
Date: September 28, 2026, 5:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks both for the swift replies.
Please see the first page as requested here:
HTML https://imgpile.com/m/u45w3bP
HTML https://imgpile.com/m/u45w3bP
To clarify, the car was parked at Town Quay, Southampton.
The Claimant listed on the form is ParkingEye / DCB Legal.
Here is the exact text from the Particulars of Claim box on the
front of my form:
"1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a
Parking Charge (PC) issued to vehicle ****** at Town
Quay,southampton.
2. The date of contravention is 23/12/2020 and the D was issued
with a PC by the Claimant
3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for
breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Vehicle
Remained on Private Property In Breach Of The Displayed T&Cs.
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper
pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170.00 being the total of the PC and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the
County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at adaily rate of
£0.03 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees"
As mentioned, I was the Registered Keeper at the time but was
not the driver. I no longer own the vehicle. I do not have the
original letters or pictures of the signs from 2020 as I ignored
them back then.
Looking forward to your guidance on drafting the specific
defence points based on these details.
#Post#: 131667--------------------------------------------------
Re: County Court Claim - Town Quay Southampton - Keeper Only -
Incident 2020
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 28, 2026, 6:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The good news about them using DCB Legal is that DCB often
withdraw at the last minute when a claim is properly defended.
When ParkingEye run claims themselves, they usually see them
through.
Your defence needs to respond to each of the particulars of
claim. It should be a fairly short series of statements that
sets out whether you admit/deny/are unable to admit or deny but
require the claimant to prove each of the allegations. Where you
deny an allegation and have a reason, briefly set out this
reason. The time for evidence and more thorough reasoning is the
Witness statement stage.
An example of the way you might structure arguments might be:
[indent]1. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to relief
in the sum sought or at all.
2. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver on the date of
the alleged contravention.
3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper
of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention, but
liability is denied.
4. It is denied that the Claimant is able to pursue the
Defendant pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act (PoFA). The Town Qiay car park, where the alleged
contravention took place, falls within the boundary of the land
governed by the Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003. These byelaws
include provisions controlling the parking of vehicles on the
land. As such, the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory
control, meaning the land is not "Relevant Land" for the
purposes of PoFA.[/indent]
This isn't intended to be a full defence, nor particularly
carefully written, just an example of how to lay out arguments.
Some other points whilst they're fresh in my mind:
- You may wish to challenge the additional £70 added to the £100
parking charge in the guise of "debt recovery" costs. This is an
example of double recovery, and is routinely disallowed even in
cases where the Claimant wins the underlying claim. If you win
the claim then the £70 is irrelevant anyway as you owe nothing,
but it's sensible to include the argument, just as some damage
limitation for the unlikely worst case scenario.
- If they've calculated the interest from a start date in 2020
you may also wish to challenge this. Whilst interest is
allowable in civil claims, and whilst they do have 6 years to
raise a claim, there's no obvious good reason why a simple claim
such as this should take so long to reach court. One might
conclude they have deliberately delayed in order to juice up the
claim with 6 years of interest.
#Post#: 131695--------------------------------------------------
Re: County Court Claim - Town Quay Southampton - Keeper Only -
Incident 2020
DIR By: RichardW
Date: September 29, 2026, 6:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you're going to run the 'bylaws' defence, then you will need
to define exactly where the car was parked, and where the port
bylaws apply. The adjacent park appears to be under control of
council bylaws, and a quick google only turned up water bylaws.
Although a bit more found:
HTML https://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/media/pafo2r0s/soton-byelaws.pdf<br
/> which has a map at the back, and does seem to imply that car
parks south of Platform Road are under the port bylaws.
It's quite likely a 2020 NTK from PE is not POFA compliant - but
you would need to get a copy of it to confirm that - you could
send a SAR to PE to get it.
#Post#: 131727--------------------------------------------------
Re: County Court Claim - Town Quay Southampton - Keeper Only -
Incident 2020
DIR By: obt0325
Date: September 29, 2026, 11:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Again, thank you both for your replies.
[member=103]DWMB2[/member]
It's reassuring to hear DCB Legal Ltd frequently discontinue
well-defended claims.
I will include points to dispute the artificial £70 inflation
("double recovery") and the 6 years delay in bringing this
claim. That being said, I think the interest is only calculated
from the issue date of the claim form. Have I misunderstood
that? If so then I cannot claim the padded interest element.
[member=885]RichardW[/member]
Regarding the location: The vehicle was strictly at Town Quay,
Southampton. Looking at the map on Page 20 of the Southampton
Harbour Byelaws 2003, Town Quay falls squarely within the red
line defining the "Limits of the Harbour." Also, Byelaw 3
defines the "dock estate" as any land or roads administered or
occupied by ABP, and Part IV (Byelaws 37-39) explicitly dictates
statutory control over vehicles and parking on that land. I
think it makes sense to run the "Not Relevant Land" defence
under PoFA Schedule 4.
I've sent an SAR as suggested and will wait for the response,
albeit it won't likely arrive before the deadline for my
defence.
I'll begin drafting my defence and will post.
Thanks again.
#Post#: 131730--------------------------------------------------
Re: County Court Claim - Town Quay Southampton - Keeper Only -
Incident 2020
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 29, 2026, 12:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You can figure when they started calculating the interest based
on the difference between the underlying alleged debt (£170)
with the "amount claimed" line on the claim form (£252.32), and
noting the rate of interest (8% per annum). To have accured
£82.32 in interest they've clearly calculated it from well
before the issue date of the claim.
I wouldn't worry if you don't get a response to your SAR in
time, it doesn't affect your main point, and if you succeed on
the main point, then any supplementary point about the content
of the original notice becomes irrelevant.
If the land is not "relevant land", PoFA does not apply. If PoFA
does not apply, then whether the original notice meets the
requirements of paragraph 9 of PoFA is immaterial, because the
whole schedule doesn't apply in any event.
#Post#: 131771--------------------------------------------------
Re: County Court Claim - Town Quay Southampton - Keeper Only -
Incident 2020
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: September 30, 2026, 2:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the 'relevant land' issue under POFA, a PCN from
PE from 6 years ago will not be POFA complaint as it will not
contain the 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid charges'
as required by Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
Following a court case last year, PE amended their wording on
their PCNs.
#Post#: 132697--------------------------------------------------
Re: County Court Claim - Town Quay Southampton - Keeper Only -
Incident 2020
DIR By: obt0325
Date: October 12, 2026, 5:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=103]DWMB2[/member] - thanks for this, it was the "from
the date hearof" that threw me. They've said they are only
charging interest from the date of the letter, but actually
charged interest from the date of the alleged event, which is
naughty.
[member=6750]InterCity125[/member] - thank you, this is really
helpful to know.
I've drafted my defence below, if anyone has any comments or
suggestions I'd welcome them.
Many thanks in advance.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [CLAIM NUMBER]
BETWEEN: PARKINGEYE LIMITED (Claimant) and [YOUR NAME]
(Defendant)
DEFENCE
- It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed
or to any sum. The Defendant responds to the Particulars of
Claim (“POC”) as follows.
- Paragraph 1 of the POC is denied. The Defendant is not
indebted to the Claimant.
- Paragraph 2 of the POC: It is admitted that the Defendant was
the registered keeper of vehicle [VRM] on 23/12/2020. The
Defendant no longer holds any correspondence from that time. The
Claimant is required to prove that a parking charge was validly
issued and that any Notice to Keeper was properly given.
- Paragraph 3 of the POC is denied. The Defendant was not the
driver of the vehicle on 23/12/2020. There is no presumption in
law that a registered keeper was the driver, and the Claimant is
put to strict proof of its assertion. It is not admitted that
adequate signage was displayed, that any contract was formed, or
that the Claimant had authority from the landowner to issue
parking charges at the location, and the Claimant is put to
strict proof of each.
- Paragraph 4 of the POC is denied. The Claimant cannot rely on
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”)
because the location is not “relevant land.”
- Town Quay, Southampton lies within the Port of Southampton and
forms part of “the dock estate” as defined in byelaw 3 of the
Associated British Ports Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003 (“the
Byelaws”). Part IV of the Byelaws regulates road vehicles on the
dock estate. In particular, byelaw 37(a) prohibits parking a
vehicle so as to cause an obstruction, and byelaw 39(a)
prohibits leaving a vehicle unattended anywhere within the dock
estate without the permission of ABP.
- Further and in the alternative, should the Court find that the
land is relevant land, it is denied that the requirements of
Schedule 4 of PoFA were met. The Claimant is put to strict proof
that its Notice to Keeper complied with paragraph 9, and in
particular that it invited the keeper to pay the unpaid parking
charges as required by paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
- The sum claimed of £170 appears to comprise a parking charge
of £100 plus an additional £70 described as damages. The
additional sum is denied. No contractual entitlement to it has
been shown, and it amounts to double recovery of costs already
included in the parking charge. Further, even were keeper
liability available, paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 4 of PoFA limits
the sum recoverable from a keeper to the amount specified in the
Notice to Keeper.
- The Particulars of Claim state that interest is claimed from
the date of issue, yet the amount claimed of £252.32 exceeds the
£170 sum sought by £82.32, which appears to represent interest
calculated from around the date of the alleged contravention in
2020. This is inconsistent with the Particulars and is denied.
Further, the Claimant delayed almost six years before issuing
proceedings on a simple claim, and the Court is invited to
exercise its discretion under section 69 of the County Courts
Act 1984 to disallow any interest arising from that delay.
- The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the
claim.
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.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1