DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 114432--------------------------------------------------
Re: received a judgement in default but have not received a Cla
im Form:
By: InterCity125 Date: March 26, 2026, 4:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay, so you need to change the wording so the driver is not
revealed.
The original PCN is not PoFA compliant so there cannot be any
keeper liability.
#Post#: 114433--------------------------------------------------
Re: received a judgement in default but have not received a Cla
im Form:
By: DWMB2 Date: March 26, 2026, 4:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Opinion may vary, but I'd be tempted to remove #2 entirely. It
might not seem the most credible to argue that the PoC are so
vague that you do not fully understand the claim against you,
when immediately below it your defence points make clear that
you do understand the case against you.
#Post#: 114435--------------------------------------------------
Re: received a judgement in default but have not received a Cla
im Form:
By: abena0277 Date: March 26, 2026, 4:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay thanks for your response. Is the below better? I used
ChatGPT
Defence
1.The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the
relief claimed, or to any relief whatsoever.
2.The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with
the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). In the absence of such compliance,
the Claimant is unable to transfer liability from the driver to
any other party. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof
as to the identity of the driver.
3.It is denied that the Claimant has established that any
legally binding contract was formed between the Claimant and the
driver. The Defendant avers that the signage at the site was
inadequate to form a contract, being unclear, insufficiently
prominent, and incapable of conveying the alleged terms in a
transparent or intelligible manner.
4.The Claimant is put to strict proof that the signage at the
location clearly and prominently communicated any requirement
for a “valid parking reservation” in relation to the use of
disabled bays. The Defendant avers that no such requirement was
clearly displayed or reasonably capable of being understood by a
motorist.
5.The vehicle was parked in a clearly marked disabled bay due to
disability and reasonable necessity. The use of the disabled bay
was reasonable in the circumstances.
6.Further, pursuant to the Equality Act 2010, service providers
are under a statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments for
disabled persons. The issuing of a parking charge in
circumstances where a disabled bay was used due to disability
and reasonable need may amount to a failure to comply with those
statutory duties.
7.The Defendant denies that the Claimant has suffered any loss
or damage. The parking charge is penal in nature, excessive, and
unconscionable, and does not represent a genuine pre estimate of
any loss.
8.The Defendant disputes the additional sum added to the
original parking charge. The purported “debt recovery”,
“damages”, or similar costs are not recoverable and represent an
attempt at double recovery. Such practices have been widely
criticised by the courts and are unsupported by statute, common
law, or the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
9.The Claimant is put to strict proof of its legal standing to
bring the claim, including evidence of a valid, contemporaneous
contract with the landowner that expressly authorises the
Claimant to issue parking charges and to pursue litigation in
its own name.
10.In the alternative, which is denied, if any contract were
found to have been formed, the Defendant avers that the terms
relied upon are unfair and unenforceable pursuant to the
Consumer Rights Act 2015, due to lack of transparency and a
significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations.
11.For the reasons stated above, the Defendant respectfully
requests that the claim be dismissed.
________________________________________
Statement of Truth
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are
true.
Signed: __________________________
Name: __________________________
Date: __________________________
________________________________________
#Post#: 114511--------------------------------------------------
Re: received a judgement in default but have not received a Cla
im Form:
By: abena0277 Date: March 26, 2026, 12:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Update, please see the defence, I have removed 2 and any wording
that identifies the driver
Defence
1.The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the
relief claimed, or to any relief whatsoever.
2.The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with
the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). In the absence of such compliance,
the Claimant is unable to transfer liability from the driver to
any other party. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof
as to the identity of the driver.
3.It is denied that the Claimant has established that any
legally binding contract was formed between the Claimant and the
driver. The Defendant avers that the signage at the site was
inadequate to form a contract, being unclear, insufficiently
prominent, and incapable of conveying the alleged terms in a
transparent or intelligible manner.
4.The Claimant is put to strict proof that the signage at the
location clearly and prominently communicated any requirement
for a “valid parking reservation” in relation to the use of
disabled bays. The Defendant avers that no such requirement was
clearly displayed or reasonably capable of being understood by a
motorist.
5.The vehicle was parked in a clearly marked disabled bay due to
disability and reasonable necessity. The use of the disabled bay
was reasonable in the circumstances.
6.Further, pursuant to the Equality Act 2010, service providers
are under a statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments for
disabled persons. The issuing of a parking charge in
circumstances where a disabled bay was used due to disability
and reasonable need may amount to a failure to comply with those
statutory duties.
7.The Defendant denies that the Claimant has suffered any loss
or damage. The parking charge is penal in nature, excessive, and
unconscionable, and does not represent a genuine pre estimate of
any loss.
8.The Defendant disputes the additional sum added to the
original parking charge. The purported “debt recovery”,
“damages”, or similar costs are not recoverable and represent an
attempt at double recovery. Such practices have been widely
criticised by the courts and are unsupported by statute, common
law, or the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
9.The Claimant is put to strict proof of its legal standing to
bring the claim, including evidence of a valid, contemporaneous
contract with the landowner that expressly authorises the
Claimant to issue parking charges and to pursue litigation in
its own name.
10.In the alternative, which is denied, if any contract were
found to have been formed, the Defendant avers that the terms
relied upon are unfair and unenforceable pursuant to the
Consumer Rights Act 2015, due to lack of transparency and a
significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations.
11.For the reasons stated above, the Defendant respectfully
requests that the claim be dismissed.
________________________________________
Statement of Truth
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are
true.
Signed: __________________________
Name: __________________________
Date: __________________________
________________________________________
#Post#: 114641--------------------------------------------------
Re: received a judgement in default but have not received a Cla
im Form:
By: abena0277 Date: March 27, 2026, 12:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have rewritten my defence using some of the advice given here
and taken out any wording that identifies me as a driver. Could
someone kindly look through if it's all good to send off,
please? Apologies in advance, I need to file this defence by
4pm on Monday. Thank you.
In the County Court
Claim number: [Claim number]
Between ParkMaven Ltd (Claimant)
and
Name (Defendant)
1.
relief claimed or at all.
2.
original parking charge. The purported “debt recovery”,
“damages”, or similar costs are not recoverable and represent an
attempt at double recovery. Such practices have been widely
criticised by the courts and are unsupported by statute, common
law, or the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
3.
characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. If the claimant
issued a Parking Charge Notice against my vehicle without making
reasonable adjustments for my disability, then the charge is
unlawful and unenforceable.
4.
the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)
5.
withstand scrutiny. Based on my past experience with private
parking operators, their notices often fail to comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and the amount claimed is
likely to include sums that constitute an abuse of process.
6.
service providers must make reasonable adjustments for disabled
persons. The issuing of a parking charge in circumstances where
a disabled person reasonably used a disabled bay may amount to a
failure to make such reasonable adjustments.
7.
any loss or damage and disputes that the additional sums added
to the original charge represent legitimate or recoverable
costs.
8.
requests that the
claim be dismissed.
9. Statement of Truth
10. The defendants believe that the facts stated in this Defence
are true.
11. Signed: ___________________
12. Name: ___________________
13. Date: ___________________
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page