DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 83326--------------------------------------------------
CPM - BW Legal - Court Claim - Parked on double yellow lines -
Please help
DIR By: disabled78
Date: July 29, 2025, 11:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
Background:
1. [Attached] The car stopped on double yellow lines on Rosemont
Road, Wembley, England (not Wharfside Business Park as alleged)
on the day of the incident with Blue badge entitlement and clock
correctly set and displayed on the dashboard. Land Registry
documents for the same road in context is an administrative area
of Brent council. The road on which the alleged infringement
took place, is owned by Brent Council / Network Rail.
2. [Attached] Signage nearby makes a request not to park on the
road but to park in their marked bays by paying a parking
charge.
3. [Attached] Based on this fact, CPM issued a parking charge
for a car on double yellow lines.
4. An appeal was filed on the Parking Charge Notice from the
Claimant as a registered keeper which was rejected, driver
details were not provided as there was no obligation to provide
the driver details.
5. [Attached] County Claim has been issued and I am filing a
defence for the same soon.
Questions:
Q1. I have drafted the defence and it fits in within the
stipulated 122 lines limit on MCOS. Is there anything I need to
modify or update it make it look better before I file the
defence?Please guide specific updates needed.
Q2. What is the correct email address for sending the Directions
Questionnaire N180 DQ, is it dq.ccbc@justice.gov.uk or
dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk
Q3. Claim Form states Issue Date of 24 July 2025, am I right in
saying that I need to file AoS by deadline by 12th August 2025
and Defence by deadline 26th August 2025?
Q4. I will be out of the country, so does anybody know if I can
file AoS and Defence from outside the UK via MCOS? (N.B: I do
not want to file them now as I will be out of the country entire
month of August, so I need time before the Court asks me to
attend Mediation)
Q5. CPM is represented by BW Legal on this occasion. Can anybody
suggest from past experience if BW Legal normally takes it
forward to the hearing or ends up in discontinuance?
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 for the purpose of formulating a complete cause
of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double
recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and
are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant.
The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking
charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums
are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant
reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the
contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the
claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the
Particulars of Claim (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 clearly 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 exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is
alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge
was allegedly incurred;
(g) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as
the driver is on an assumption from the Claimant that the
registered keeper was the driver, which may not be true.
2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability
is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing
proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving
material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly
prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a
finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5).
3. The vehicle is recognised and it is confirmed that the
Defendant was the registered keeper. An appeal was filed on the
Parking Charge Notice from the Claimant as a registered keeper
which was rejected, driver details were not provided as there
was no obligation to provide the driver details.
The car stopped on double yellow lines on Rosemont Road,
Wembley, England (not Wharfside Business Park as alleged) on the
day of the incident with Blue badge entitlement and clock
correctly set and displayed on the dashboard. Land Registry
documents for the same road in context is an administrative area
of Brent council, the PoC do not state the clause (or clauses)
of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) to
which the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the
contract (or contracts).
The Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of
Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but
not limited to, failing to specify the period of parking to
which this notice applies as prescribed by section 9 (2) (e) of
the Act. The road on which the alleged infringement took place,
is owned by Brent Council / Network Rail. As such it is not
relevant land as defined by PoFA 2012 and again Claimant cannot
therefore transfer liability for the alleged charge from the
driver at the time to me, the keeper.
Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement
Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service
Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the PoC fails to
comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice
Direction Part 16.7.5. The same is true in this case and the
Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant
claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached
but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and
valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer
Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on
Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer
notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also
s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the
Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear
(unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this
case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof
with contemporaneous photographs.
5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior
written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to
strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and
dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract,
updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the
landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).
6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a
strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for
loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any
relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated.
This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall
or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully
distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.
7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis
(an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and
generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii)
the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD
[2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and
stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse.
HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by
the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already
increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the
minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be
penal'.
8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by
operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government
recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to
bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called
‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July
2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than
... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be
indicative of these firms having too much control over the
market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.
9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable:
see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim
against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid
parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the
driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Additional costs/ fees (unknown
to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking
related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee'
DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied
with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA
fees.
Thanks and Regards,
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 83339--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM - BW Legal - Court Claim - Parked on double yellow lines
- Please help
DIR By: b789
Date: July 29, 2025, 12:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
First you need to clarify precisely where on Rosemont Road the
vehicle was parked. Based on the available evidence, portions of
Rosemont Road lie within the Wharfside Business Park, a
privately owned estate.
These internal roads are not adopted public highway. The outer
portion of Rosemont Road (connecting to Ealing Road) is a public
highway and under statutory control by Brent Council, the local
highway authority.
So, inside the Wharfside estate, roads labelled “Rosemont Road”
are on private land, managed privately — they are ‘relevant
land’ under PoFA. Outside the estate (public section), Rosemont
Road is not ‘relevant land’ — because it is under statutory
control (maintained by the council).
If the vehicle was parking within the boundary of Wharfside
Business Park, then the Blue Badge scheme is not applicable and
the landowner can make up whatever rules they want. If the
vehicle was parked on Rosemont Road outside the boundary of
Wharfside Business Park, then the land is not relevant for the
purposes of PoFA and the Keeper cannot be liable, only the
driver, if they can evidence it.
However, you are correct to have not identified the driver as
the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant wth paragraph
9(2)(a) of PoFA because it does not state a "period of parking".
The relevant case law is persuasive as it was appealed in
Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) and the judge
confirmed that without a specified period of parking rather than
a single timestamp, the notice was not PoFA compliant and the
Keeper cannot be liable without driver identity.
The defence you have suggested has a few flaws and is not
presented fully. It appears to be a hybrid. I would suggest you
use the short defence we provide as the vast majority of judges
will not properly read a defence is it too long and wanders
about with what appear to be vague references, especially when
it goes on about the government introducing new legislation etc.
The Chan and Akande references are incorrect for this defence as
the claimant has provided a cause of action, even though it is
not adequately pleaded. You can refer to Brennan as the NtK is
not PoFA compliant.
I would advise that you use the following defence as it is short
and has been checked to fit the MCOL limits and will not split
words and ruin the format of the defence. It pleads a technical
failure by the claimant to particularise their claim properly,
in breach of CPR 16.4.
Whilst BW Legal are likely to progress all the way to a hearing,
you would need to wait to see their Witness Statement, which is
easily rebutted and then allows you to respond to any non
technical points they raise. They never issue a proper witness
statement as it will be penned by a BW Legal employee and is
basically hearsay.
Before you do anything, you need to verify that the location the
vehicle was parked on Rosemont Road, either within the boundary
of Wharfside Business Park or outside of it.
For now I will advise you follow the standard defence procedure
we provide which is as follows:
With an issue date of 24th July, you have until 4pm on Tuesday
12th August to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Tuesday 26th August to submit your defence.
If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in
this linked PDF:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a
defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence
using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the
"system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or
inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with
the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that
far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on
MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the
65 characters per line and 122 lines limit.
--- Quote ---
> 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 fails to disclose
> any comprehensible cause of action.
>
> 2. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) lack sufficient detail in
> respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the
> Defendant and do not comply with CPR 16.4.
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> (a) The alleged contract is not attached or detailed in breach
> of CPR PD 16.7.3(1);
> (b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause(s)
> relied upon;
> (c) The PoC do not explain how the Defendant allegedly
breached
> the contract;
> (d) The PoC do not specify where, when, or for how long the
> vehicle was parked before the charge was incurred;
> (e) The PoC do not explain how the sum claimed is calculated,
> including any interest or damages;
> (f) The PoC do not distinguish between the parking charge and
> any added costs;
> (g) The PoC do not clarify whether the Defendant is pursued as
> driver or keeper, and alternative causes of action are not
> pleaded with specificity.
>
> 4. The Defendant is the registered keeper. The Claimant has
not
> identified the driver. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to
> comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA),
> Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires the NtK to state
> the period of parking. The NtK only provides a single
timestamp
> and no duration, which is insufficient.
>
> 5. The Defendant relies on the persuasive appellate case of
> Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023) [H6DP632H],
where
> requirement to specify a "period of parking" under PoFA. The
> absence of a stated duration renders the NtK non-compliant and
> prevents the Claimant from holding the keeper liable.
>
> 6. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck
out
> similar claims for failure to comply with CPR 16.4, especially
> where the PoC fail to specify contractual terms or the alleged
> breach with clarity.
>
> 7. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have
found
> that further case management steps would be disproportionate
and
> contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out
> was deemed appropriate. The Defendant invites the court to
adopt
> the same approach here.
>
> Draft Order
>
> Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
> of claim and the defence.
>
> AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do
> not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do
> not set out the exact wording of the clause(s) of the terms
and
> conditions relied upon; and (b) they do not adequately set out
> the reason(s) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was
in
> breach of contract.
>
> AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had
it
> served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could
have
> done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
>
> AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the
> court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with
> the overriding objective to allot to this case any further
share
> of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of
> claim and a further defence, each followed by further
referrals
> to the judge for case management.
>
> ORDER:
>
> 1. The claim is struck out.
>
> 2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
> stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed
at
> this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order,
> failing which no such application may be made.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83510--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM - BW Legal - Court Claim - Parked on double yellow lines
- Please help
DIR By: disabled78
Date: July 30, 2025, 2:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your help. Much appreciated.
#Post#: 83686--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM - BW Legal - Court Claim - Parked on double yellow lines
- Please help
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 1, 2025, 5:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have received a mod report to remove personal information from
this post, but cannot see any personally identifiable data in
any of the images. If you can advise where you believe personal
data is visible I can obscure this if there is any.
#Post#: 83688--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM - BW Legal - Court Claim - Parked on double yellow lines
- Please help
DIR By: disabled78
Date: August 1, 2025, 5:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> I have received a mod report to remove personal information
from this post, but cannot see any personally identifiable data
in any of the images. If you can advise where you believe
personal data is visible I can obscure this if there is any.
>
--- End Quote ---
Please kindly remove the post as it contains image of the car
and Parking Chare Notice.pdf (with visible reference / car image
/ and incident details) and Court Claim.pdf (with visible make
and model of the car and claim details);
alternatively please remove all attachments completely.
Thanks
#Post#: 83690--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM - BW Legal - Court Claim - Parked on double yellow lines
- Please help
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 1, 2025, 6:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
None of these things would seem to include personal identifiable
data... It might be difficult to offer further advice at (for
example) the witness statement stage without site of these info.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1