DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97345--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: awf185
Date: November 7, 2025, 3:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for clearing that up, I understand now.
I’m currently at the stage where a County Court Claim has been
issued.
The issue date is 31/10/2025, and I filed my Acknowledgment of
Service on 06/11/2025 (defend all)
#Post#: 97348--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: b789
Date: November 7, 2025, 3:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How did you submit your AoS? Did you use the MCOL, email or by
post?
With an issue date of 31st October, you have until 4pm on
Wednesday 19th November to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then (as you say you
have), you would then have until 4pm on Wednesday 3rd December
to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare
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
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 does not
adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
>
> 2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of
Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply
with CPR 16.4.
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> (a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to
the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
>
> (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 adequately 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 breach occurred, 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;
>
> (e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;
>
> (f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
>
> (g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
>
> 4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck
out materially similar claims of their own initiative for
failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where
the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms
relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient
clarity.
>
> 5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have
found that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant
submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites
the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR
16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant
proposes that the following Order be made:
>
> 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 (or clauses) of
the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are)
relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or
reasons) 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 PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
>
> AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the
overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be
disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any
further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for
example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further
defence, with consequent 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 7 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 97358--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: awf185
Date: November 7, 2025, 4:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I submitted my AoS via MCOL. Should I submit that defence
now, or wait a bit closer to the deadline?
Just to check — the defence you’ve posted doesn’t mention that
the tariff was paid (it was a one-letter reg typo).
Should I leave that out for now and stick with this short
strike-out version, or should I add a line mentioning that
payment was made?
#Post#: 97359--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: b789
Date: November 7, 2025, 5:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just submit the defence now, as is.
#Post#: 122537--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: awf185
Date: June 21, 2026, 8:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Update: amended defence stage, would appreciate a sanity check
before I file (deadline 24 June)
Update on my Euro Car Parks / Walsall Waterfront claim
(one-letter keying error, tariff paid).
It wasn't discontinued. The court reviewed it on paper and made
an order (dated 14 May 2026). The judge was critical of my
original defence, it was handwritten and basically pleaded that
the POC were defective and asked for strike-out, but didn't
actually say I'd paid. Because it didn't deny the specific
allegations, he's treated me under CPR 16.5(5) as having
admitted I was the driver, that no valid ticket was displayed,
and that this breached the contract — so he says the only live
issue is the amount.
But the order gives me permission to file an amended defence by
4pm on 24 June 2026 (typed), with witness statements by 29 June
and a paper disposal to follow. So I've got one shot to do it
properly.
Recap of the facts:
Euro Car Parks, Walsall Waterfront (site 330104), 9 Aug 2024
Paid £3 evening tariff at 18:33 (bank) / 18:34 on the machine -
terminal WLW07L, Tx ID 144163
Typed [WRONG-VRM] at the machine instead of my reg [MY-VRM] -
one letter different
[WRONG-VRM] isn't a real registered vehicle, so plainly a typo
Registered keeper, not admitting driver, PCN checked as
POFA-compliant
Appealed to ECP (rejected) and POPLA (rejected — they accepted
I'd paid but said the ticket wasn't valid for the right VRM, and
cited Beavis)
Claim is £170 (£100 + £70 "damages") + 8% interest + costs
POC (redacted): indebted for a PCN issued to [REDACTED] at
Walsall – Waterfront; contravention 09/08/2024; pursued as
driver for "No Valid Pay And Display/Permit Was Purchased",
alternatively keeper under POFA 2012 Sch 4; claims £170 +
interest + costs.
Draft amended defence:
AMENDED DEFENCE
(filed pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Order dated 14 May 2026)
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum
claimed, or to any sum at all. This Amended Defence is filed
pursuant to the permission granted at paragraph 2 of the Order
dated 14 May 2026. To the extent that the Defendant's previous
Defence is taken, by operation of CPR 16.5(5), to have admitted
any matter, no such admission was intended, and each material
allegation in the Particulars of Claim ("the POC") is addressed
below.
The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration
mark [MY VRM] ("the Vehicle"). The Defendant does not admit
being the driver, and the Claimant is put to proof of the
driver's identity. The claim is understood to be pursued against
the Defendant as keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012.
It is admitted that the Vehicle was present at Walsall
Waterfront car park (site code 330104) ("the Car Park") on 9
August 2024, and that the Claimant operates the Car Park on a
paid basis using Automatic Number Plate Recognition ("ANPR")
cameras.
The POC allege that "No Valid Pay And Display/Permit Was
Purchased." That is denied. The full applicable tariff of £3.00
(the evening tariff, valid up to four hours) was paid for the
Vehicle on 9 August 2024 at 18:33, as shown by the payer's bank
statement, and was recorded by the Claimant's own payment
terminal (terminal WLW07L) at approximately 18:34 under
transaction ID 144163.
In entering the registration at the terminal, a single-character
keying error was made: "[KEYED VRM]" was entered in place of the
Vehicle's correct registration "[MY VRM]". The two differ by one
character only (the first letter); the remaining six characters
are identical. The registration "[KEYED VRM]" does not
correspond to any vehicle registered with the DVLA, and could
only have been intended as the Vehicle's registration.
The Claimant's own transaction report (transaction ID 144163,
terminal WLW07L, site 330104) records both the £3.00 payment and
the keyed registration. The Claimant therefore held all the
information needed to match the payment to the Vehicle — the
correct sum, at the correct terminal and site, at the correct
time, under a registration differing from the Vehicle's by one
character and corresponding to no other registered vehicle. The
Claimant nonetheless declined to match or refund the payment and
instead pursued the full charge.
The Claimant has accordingly suffered no loss. The purpose of
the charge is to secure payment of the tariff; the tariff was
paid in full. This is not a case of overstaying, or of parking
without payment.
The Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association
("the BPA") and an Approved Operator, bound by the BPA Code of
Practice, which makes specific provision for keying errors. A
minor keying error — a single incorrect character, or characters
in the wrong order, is to be identified before any charge is
issued and, failing that, cancelled at the first stage of appeal
where payment can be demonstrated. Even an error treated as
"major" permits recovery of no more than a modest administration
fee (of the order of £20) where payment was made. The
Defendant's error is a minor, single-character error. The
Claimant failed to cancel the charge and instead pursued the
Defendant for £170, in breach of the keying-error provisions of
its own Code.
In these circumstances the charge is an unenforceable penalty.
The Defendant is aware that in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015]
UKSC 67 the Supreme Court held that a parking charge may be
enforceable although it does not reflect a loss, where it
protects a legitimate interest and is not extravagant or
unconscionable. That case is materially distinguishable: in
Beavis the motorist had overstayed the free period without
paying, and the operator's legitimate interest lay in deterring
overstaying to manage turnover of spaces. Here the full tariff
was paid, there was no overstay, and the only "breach" is a
single mistyped character that caused no loss and which the
Claimant could trivially have resolved from its own records.
There is no legitimate interest capable of justifying a charge
of £100 (still less £170), and the charge is out of all
proportion to any such interest.
Further or alternatively, any term purporting to impose a £100
charge on a motorist who has paid the full tariff but mistyped a
single character of their registration creates a significant
imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the
detriment of the consumer, contrary to the requirement of good
faith, and is an unfair term under section 62 of the Consumer
Rights Act 2015. It is not binding on the Defendant.
The Claimant is put to strict proof of (a) its authority from
the landowner to operate the Car Park, issue charges, and bring
proceedings in its own name; and (b) that the signage was
sufficiently prominent and clear to bring the alleged terms
(including any requirement to enter the full, correct
registration) to the driver's attention so as to form a
contract.
The sum claimed is £170, described as "the total of the PC and
damages." The advertised charge is understood to be £100. The
additional £70 represents no loss or cost actually incurred, is
an unenforceable penalty, and is not recoverable. The Defendant
relies on ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC
4023 (QB), and notes that the Court has already observed, at
paragraph (2) of the Order dated 14 May 2026, that a collection
or late payment fee of £60 or £70 is an unenforceable penalty.
The claim for interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act
1984 is denied; no sum being due, no interest accrues.
In all the circumstances the Defendant denies that any sum is
owed and respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim
Specific questions:
Given the CPR 16.5(5) deemed admission point, is the amended
defence enough to re-open liability, or should I address the
deficient original defence more directly?
Have I distinguished Beavis correctly (overstay without paying
vs paid in full)?
Should I admit I was the driver and run a clean first-person
witness statement, or stay keeper-only? POFA is compliant so I
don't think keeper only buys me much?
My strongest point feels like ECP's own machine log showing my
payment + the one-letter-off reg (which isn't even a real
vehicle). Am I pitching that right?
Any tips on the witness statement / evidence bundle for a paper
disposal?
Thanks all.
#Post#: 122544--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 21, 2026, 9:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Stop paraphrasing key documents.
Please POST UP what you have back from the Court.
What you have suggested regarding the Judge's comments would be
very strange.
Once we see what the Judge has written then we can advise.
#Post#: 122553--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: awf185
Date: June 21, 2026, 11:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've attached screenshots of the actual order so you can see
exactly what the Judge has written (both pages). For context,
the defence referred to in paragraph (1) was my original
handwritten one. Grateful for any advice once you've had a look.
Thanks
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/61Efhum
#Post#: 122570--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 21, 2026, 1:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay.
This is a harsh sanction.
We will need to examine this in some detail.
Your defence remains valid in terms of the 'minor keying error'
meaning; that the parking operator should have cancelled the
ticket.
Can you please demonstrate the keying error for use?
Imagine your VRM is "AB65 CDE"
What did you actually type into the machine based on the above
VRM?
#Post#: 122572--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: awf185
Date: June 21, 2026, 2:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Instead of typing YT65 CDE
I typed: LT65 CDE
#Post#: 122592--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 22, 2026, 1:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Quick question - when you appealed to ECP, did they request
further information from you in terms of establishing the
registration which was entered?
I'm asking this after reviewing Code of Practice Version 1 (27th
June 2024) Annex F which states;
In all cases the Appeals Charter would require the motorist to
provide the evidence.
Where the operator is not satisfied with the evidence, they
should request further evidence from a motorist when it becomes
clear they are claiming to meet the criteria.
Where a motorist engages and provides acceptable evidence, they
will be dealt with in accordance with the
Appeals Charter.
It's our experience that certain parking operators will do all
the can to 'avoid' finding orphaned payments on their systems.
We see it time and time again where the reply to appeals
stating, "We cannot find a payment on our system matching your
VRM", even when the appellant has asked that the orphaned
payment record be examined.
Also, why did this end up being a paper hearing?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page