DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 116353--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: April 19, 2026, 2:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
thank you, now re-submitted, together with the acknowledgement
of receipt
#Post#: 119886--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: May 28, 2026, 5:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi.
I received this from the county court today. I think I need to
put together a defence - is this within 28 days of the claimant
filing their Full paticulars of Claim?
#Post#: 119887--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 28, 2026, 5:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
14+5 days from the date on the N1SDT form, unless you file an
Acknowledgment of Service by this deadline, in which case you
get an additional 14 days to file a defence.
However you haven’t posted anything and this thread says you
have already submitted a defence.
#Post#: 119888--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: May 28, 2026, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not sure how to attach but the letter says:
It is ordered that:
1. The claimant must by (14 days) file and serve a Fully
Particularised Particulars of Claim to include full details of:
a. the terms of the alleged contract which has been breached;
b. how the alleged contract was breached (including date, time
and location);
c. A breakdown of the sums claimed.
2. The Defendant must by (28 days) file and serve a Fully
Particularised Amended Defence to the Fully Particularised
Particulars of Claim.
3. Note: A party affected by this order may apply, not more than
7 days after it is served on the m, to have it set aside, varied
or stayed.
Dated 27 May 2026
#Post#: 119889--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 28, 2026, 5:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Reply #1 said you should read
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
The defence you submited per Reply #32 is increasingly struck
out as being boilerplate and not specific to the claim, just as
the claimant’s Particulars of Claim were struck out. So you need
to read the more specific revised Particulars of Claim, to be
received within 14 days, and submit a more specific defence than
previously submitted in response, within 28 days as you say.
#Post#: 119890--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: May 28, 2026, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. Just wondering next steps as my defence was that the
claimant had not provided sufficient details of their claim.
Assuming they now do so (and I will copy it here), do I get 28
days from the date they file their revised details of claim?
#Post#: 119891--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 28, 2026, 5:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think so, but you’re the one with the letter from the
court. You go by what this says.
#Post#: 119922--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: May 28, 2026, 9:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Return and post up the revised PoC once the Claimant submits
them.
#Post#: 121388--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: June 10, 2026, 2:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi. I've now received the revised particulars of claim and
copied and pasted it below. It is strange because it doesn't
give full details of the signage which said that customers could
park there for 90 mins, nor any details of how they believe I
contravened the terms and conditions. It also says I am the
registered keeper, which is not true. I was just the driver but
not the registered keeper, and I did say I was the driver very
early on when my spouse (who is the registered keeper) received
the penalty notice, and I did appeal but the appeal was ignored.
They've also misspelt New Malden (not New Maldon). My defence is
that I was a customer and stayed for less than 90 mins so no
breach. They will argue that I was not a customer because the
store was closed, but how can you know this before you enter the
car park? Once you enter as a customer, you have 90 mins to
exit, which I did.
AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
These Amended Particulars of Claim are filed and served in
accordance with the Court Order
of District Judge Jacobs dated 27/05/2026.
Parties
1. The Claimant is a Company that offers private car park
management services to private
landowners; primarily to manage the way in which motorists are
permitted to park whilst on their private land. At all material
times, the Claimant was accredited by the
Accredited Trade Association ("ATA") known as the British
Parking Association
("BPA"). The BPA has a Code of Practice ("Code") that its
members are expected to
adhere to, or otherwise they face potential sanctions. The
Claimant operates in
accordance with the Code.
2. The Defendant is the recipient of a parking charge ("the
Charge") issued by the
Claimant.
Background
3. The details of the Charge issued at to the Defendant's
vehicle with the registration mark
of xxxx ("the Vehicle") at (768) Krispy Kreme New Maldon, New
Maldon,
KT3 4NA ("the Land") are as follows: -
Charge No.
AB30311849
Contravention Date
24/08/2024
Issue Date
28/08/2024
Reason For Issue
Unauthorised Parking
Landowner Authority
4. At the time the Charge was issued, the Claimant was
instructed by the owner of the
Land ("Landowner") to manage parking on the Land.
Contract & Breach
5. The Claimant was prominently displaying signs on the Land
stipulating the Terms and
Conditions of parking (“Terms”) at the time the Charge was
issued. The signs formed
the basis of the Contract with the driver of the Vehicle and
contained the following
terms:-
-
"Private Property - No Unauthorised Parking"
"TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE APPLY AT ALL TIMES. PLEASE READ
THIS SIGN
CARFULLY."
"Motorists visiting this car park are entering into contractual
agreement and agree to comply
with the terms and conditions of use and also accept liability
to pay the parking charge if they
fail to comply with."
6. The following term made it clear that a £100 parking charge
would be payable in those
circumstances: -
"If you breach any of the above terms and conditions of use you
will be charged: £100".
7. By parking the Vehicle on the Land in the manner described
herein, the driver accepted
the Terms of the Contract by way of conduct, with the 'parking
service' being the
consideration ("Contract"). The driver subsequently breached the
Terms in failing to purchase a suitable tariff payment for their
vehicle registration mark at the material
time.
8. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") the "relevant obligation" arose under
the terms of a "relevant contract". The
"relevant contract" was between the driver and the Claimant, who
was authorised by
the Landowner to enter into a contract with the driver,
requiring payment in respect of
the parking of the Vehicle on the Land.
Defendant's Liability
9. In order to issue the Charge, the Claimant applied to the
DVLA for the details of the
Registered Keeper of the Vehicle to send notices compliant with
Schedule 4 of POFA.
10. Pursuant to paragraph 4 of POFA, the Claimant has the right
to recover the Charge from the 'Keeper'. Paragraph 1 of POFA
clarifies that the Registered Keeper is presumed to
be the 'Keeper' unless proven otherwise.
11. The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle and is
therefore presumed to be
the 'Keeper' for the purposes of POFA.
12. Upon receipt of those details, Notice is sent to the Keeper
via the post in accordance
with Section 9 of Schedule 4 of POFA.
13. For the sake of completeness, the Claimant relies on
Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 9 of POFA.
14. As outlined in paragraph 12 above, the Parking Charge was
issued to the Defendant via
post, as permitted within section 9.
15. The Parking Charge to the Registered Keeper was issued
within the required 14-day
period under Paragraph 9(5).
16. The Parking Charge included all mandatory information under
Paragraph 9(2),
including:-
i. The vehicle registration and relevant incident details
(9(2)(a)-(c));
ii. The total amount due (9(2)(d));
iii. A statement that the operator does not know the driver's
name and
address and an invitation for the keeper to provide this
(9(2)(e)-(f));
iv. A warning that the keeper may be liable if the driver is not
named within
28 days (9(2)(f));
v. The date of issue (9(2)(g));
vi. Instructions for payment and contact details (9(2)(h)-(i)).
17. The Parking Charge was served by post and was presumed
delivered under POFA
Paragraph 9(6).
18. As the driver was not named within the required time and all
other statutory
requirements were satisfied, the Claimant is entitled to pursue
the Keeper under
Paragraph 4(6) of POFA.
19. Pursuant to paragraph 4 of POFA, the Claimant has the right
to recover the Charge from
the 'Keeper'. Paragraph 1 of POFA clarifies that the Registered
Keeper is presumed to
be the 'Keeper' unless proven otherwise.
20. The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle and is
therefore presumed to be
the 'Keeper' for the purposes of POFA.
21. A POFA compliant Notice of Keeper was therefore sent to the
Defendant at the address
supplied by the DVLA, providing the Defendant the opportunity to
pay, appeal or
nominate the driver (if it was not them). None of which were
done.
Pre-Action Conduct
22. As a result of non-payment, the Claimant instructed Direct
Collections Bailiffs Limited
to send further letters to the Defendant to prompt payment. As
the matter could not be
resolved, the Claimant instructed DCB Legal Ltd to send a Letter
of Claim to the
Defendant.
23. The Claimant subsequently issued Court proceedings as a last
resort to recover the
monies.
Amount Claimed
24. The Claimant seeks the total sum of £270.52, broken down as
follows: -
Charge
Contractual Costs
£100.00
£70.00
Interest
£15.52
Court Fee
£35.00
Legal Representative Fixed Costs
£50.00
25. The Contractual Costs are claimed pursuant to the Contract
which states: -
"The charge must be paid with 28 days and will be reduced if it
is paid within 14 days of issue.
Should it remain unpaid at this point further charges may
accrue"
26. Interest is claimed pursuant to section 69 of the County
Courts Act 1984 at a standard
rate of 8% per annum above base rate until Judgment or sooner
payment, or for such
period as the Court sees fit.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS: -
i.
Charge - £100.00
ii.
Contractual Costs £70.00
-
iii.
Interest - £15.52
iv.
Court Fee - £35.00
V.
Legal Representative Fixed Costs - £50.00
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Amended
Particulars of Claim are true
and I am duly authorised to sign on the Claimant's behalf. 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.
Signed
Name: David John Croot
Position: Solicitor
Dated: 05/06/2026
Address for service of documents:
DCB Legal Ltd
Direct House
Greenwood Drive
Manor Park
Runcorn
WA7 1UG
#Post#: 121445--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 11, 2026, 6:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We'll need to pick through that.
When do you have to submit your defence?
Could you please re-post the original PCN as the old links have
expired?
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 8
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page