DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 126484--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 1, 2026, 9:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DontStandForNonsense link ---
>
> [quote author=jfollows link=topic=9044.msg126147#msg126147
date=1785314900]
> [quote author=DontStandForNonsense
link=topic=9044.msg126134#msg126134 date=1785306039]
> How and at what point should I be sharing the points? And will
the photos taken in store and dialogue relating to the stores
products time stamped through whatsapp be used or are they not
relevant to the defense?
>
--- End Quote ---
Your defence will be a written statement, logical simple and
clear.
Your original appeal was on the basis of non-compliance with
PoFA 2012, so your defence should lead with this and amplify
exactly what requirement(s) of the legislation were
missed/failed and why.
Personally I would also argue against the meaningless "charge"
on the NtK and repeated in the Particulars of Claim.
If this ever gets to court, you will provide a witness statement
which would include the other things you mention.
Also note that, in our experience, Moorside Legal is
exceptionally incompetent, so you should not assume that they
know what they're doing or talking about.
If you post a draft defence here you will likely get comments
and suggestions on it. This thread and other information on the
forum should give you a good starting point for this.
[/quote]
Do you know exactly how the NTK was non compliant with the PoFA?
[/quote]
No, I assumed that because you said so in your appeal last
December that you knew how, or had worked it out since then.
#Post#: 126500--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: DontStandForNonsense
Date: August 1, 2026, 11:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> [quote author=DontStandForNonsense
link=topic=9044.msg126481#msg126481 date=1785592647]
> [quote author=jfollows link=topic=9044.msg126147#msg126147
date=1785314900]
> [quote author=DontStandForNonsense
link=topic=9044.msg126134#msg126134 date=1785306039]
> How and at what point should I be sharing the points? And will
the photos taken in store and dialogue relating to the stores
products time stamped through whatsapp be used or are they not
relevant to the defense?
>
--- End Quote ---
Your defence will be a written statement, logical simple and
clear.
Your original appeal was on the basis of non-compliance with
PoFA 2012, so your defence should lead with this and amplify
exactly what requirement(s) of the legislation were
missed/failed and why.
Personally I would also argue against the meaningless "charge"
on the NtK and repeated in the Particulars of Claim.
If this ever gets to court, you will provide a witness statement
which would include the other things you mention.
Also note that, in our experience, Moorside Legal is
exceptionally incompetent, so you should not assume that they
know what they're doing or talking about.
If you post a draft defence here you will likely get comments
and suggestions on it. This thread and other information on the
forum should give you a good starting point for this.
[/quote]
Do you know exactly how the NTK was non compliant with the PoFA?
[/quote]
No, I assumed that because you said so in your appeal last
December that you knew how, or had worked it out since then.
[/quote]
B789 said because of deficiencies in their Notice to Keeper
(NtK) they cannot rely on PoFA 2012 to transfer the liability
from the unknown driver to the known Keeper. But I'm not sure
what those deficiencies were. B789 said they relied on contract
law and that they can only hold the driver liable. B789 wen to
say Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the mandatory
requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012. But I just don't understand if I should be simply
repeating this is the defence or that I should be specific on
how. And I don't know how it failed to comply with it
specifically.
What i do understand is that they provided no evidence to
support their evidence that the driver left the site.
#Post#: 126504--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 1, 2026, 12:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member] hasn't been active on these forums for
many months now, and didn't bother to explain the reasons why
your notice didn't comply with PoFA 2012.
So either you can look for yourself
(
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4)
or one
of the other volunteers here may be able to help you.
I can add, although it doesn't help you here, that I believe
that whenever I advise non-compliance with PoFA 2012 on this
forum I also quote the relevant part of the legislation and why
the notice doesn't comply.
#Post#: 126510--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: DontStandForNonsense
Date: August 1, 2026, 2:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> [member=26]b789[/member] hasn't been active on these forums
for many months now, and didn't bother to explain the reasons
why your notice didn't comply with PoFA 2012.
> So either you can look for yourself
(
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4)
or one
of the other volunteers here may be able to help you.
>
> I can add, although it doesn't help you here, that I believe
that whenever I advise non-compliance with PoFA 2012 on this
forum I also quote the relevant part of the legislation and why
the notice doesn't comply.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you. I'll try and understand how, if at all, the NTK
didn't comply AND check the case that was referenced as an
example. Not going to lie, legallesse is often utter gibberish
to me, but ill try. I hope that in the mean time, a volunteer
might understand it all better. Otherwise I think the only
approach will be to argue that no evidence was provided (that is
quite a straight forward thing for me to understand and argue
argue) There is no evidence because non exists.
#Post#: 126511--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: roythebus
Date: August 1, 2026, 3:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Precisely, if they've got no evidence then they are wasting
time.
#Post#: 126512--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 1, 2026, 3:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Alleged breach of contract:
Driver left site designated for customer parking only.
Would require, as a minimum, that the driver was the customer
i.e. the only person in a vehicle, and that they left the site
while the vehicle remained parked.
And their proof is....?
IMO, you deal with the alleged breach first, not procedural
matters. After all, what's the benefit in being able to hold the
keeper liable for a non-existent parking charge?
#Post#: 126586--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: DontStandForNonsense
Date: August 2, 2026, 10:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Please let me know what you all think?
DEFENCE
1.
The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety.
2.
It is admitted only that the Defendant is the registered keeper
of the vehicle referred to in the Particulars of Claim. Save for
that admission, every allegation is denied.
3.
The claim is founded upon a single factual allegation, namely
that the driver left the retail park in breach of the
contractual terms relied upon by the Claimant.
That allegation is expressly denied.
The Defendant's case is that the driver remained within the
retail park as a genuine customer of Decathlon before returning
directly to the vehicle and leaving the site. Accordingly, no
contractual breach occurred.
4.
The Defendant has consistently denied that the alleged breach
occurred from the earliest opportunity.
The Defendant's position is supported by contemporaneous
evidence created during the visit, which will be relied upon at
the witness statement stage.
5.
The Particulars of Claim fail to set out the material facts
relied upon with sufficient particularity to enable the
Defendant fully to understand the case to be met.
In particular, the Particulars fail to identify:
the contractual term allegedly breached;
the geographical extent of the alleged "site";
where the driver is alleged to have gone;
how the alleged breach was observed; and
the factual basis upon which liability is asserted.
The burden rests upon the Claimant to prove each element of its
claim.
6.
The photographs disclosed by the Claimant identify only the
presence of the parked vehicle. They do not, on their face,
evidence the alleged contractual breach upon which the claim is
founded.
7.
If the Claimant maintains that the alleged contractual breach
occurred, it is required to prove:
(a) that the alleged conduct occurred;
(b) that the alleged conduct amounted to a breach of the
contractual terms relied upon;
(c) that the operative accurately observed the alleged conduct;
(d) that any observations relied upon were recorded
contemporaneously;
(e) that the contractual terms relied upon, including any
alleged prohibition upon leaving the site, were clearly,
prominently and unambiguously communicated to motorists; and
(f) that the Claimant possessed the necessary authority from the
landowner both to enter contracts with motorists and to pursue
this claim.
8.
Further, insofar as the Claimant seeks to establish keeper
liability pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012, such liability is denied.
The Defendant does not admit that the mandatory statutory
conditions required to invoke keeper liability have been
satisfied and puts the Claimant to strict proof of full
compliance.
The Defendant reserves the right to expand upon this issue
should the Claimant seek to rely upon Schedule 4 or should
further relevant information become available during the course
of proceedings.
9.
The Defendant disputes the additional sums claimed over and
above the original parking charge and requires the Claimant to
prove the contractual and legal basis upon which those
additional sums are said to be recoverable.
10.
For the reasons set out above, the Court is respectfully invited
to dismiss the claim.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Signed: ___________________________
Name: ____________________________
Date: _____________________________
#Post#: 126592--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 2, 2026, 12:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The claim is founded upon a single factual allegation, namely
that the driver left the retail park in breach of the
contractual terms relied upon by the Claimant.
That allegation is expressly denied.
The Defendant's case is that the driver remained within the
retail park as a genuine customer of Decathlon before returning
directly to the vehicle and leaving the site. Accordingly, no
contractual breach occurred.
I've highlighted what I think is a mistake: you've tried to
interpret their grounds.
I suggest you state exactly what's in the PoC, which is:
Driver left site designated for customer parking only.
Is a non sequitur (A non sequitur is a statement, remark, or
conclusion that does not logically or naturally follow from what
came before it).
Which is where you should start IMO.
Without further explanation, IMO (and forgetting your admissions
on this forum) it is not possible to compile a defence because
the roles of 'customer' and 'driver' are not explained. Is their
claim that the driver was not a customer and left the site and
there was no 'customer', or that the driver was the only
customer (in the vehicle) and left the site? So is the breach
that 'customers' must remain on the site or that 'drivers' must,
but 'customers' are not bound by any restriction. Is the
claimant saying that occupants of the car are bound by the same
contractual terms which bind the driver and/or that the driver
is responsible for occupants' whereabouts?
I haven't the foggiest idea!
As regards 'non compliance', IMO previous posts have overstated
the requirement. Para. 9 of Sch. 4, which is the relevant part,
uses these terms regarding what a notice must contain:
State;
Warn;
Inform;
Specify.
Previous posts have not differentiated between their legal
meanings and IMO have sought to convey that para. 9 must be
included, implicitly verbatim, and that its provisions must
appear once only in a notice and in the same form as in Sch. 4.
IMO, courts have discretion regarding determining compliance
i.e. is the meaning conveyed consistent with the purpose of
para. 9, not just whether every word appears.
#Post#: 126606--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: DontStandForNonsense
Date: August 2, 2026, 3:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> The claim is founded upon a single factual allegation, namely
that the driver left the retail park in breach of the
contractual terms relied upon by the Claimant.
>
> That allegation is expressly denied.
>
> The Defendant's case is that the driver remained within the
retail park as a genuine customer of Decathlon before returning
directly to the vehicle and leaving the site. Accordingly, no
contractual breach occurred.
>
>
> I've highlighted what I think is a mistake: you've tried to
interpret their grounds.
>
> I suggest you state exactly what's in the PoC, which is:
> Driver left site designated for customer parking only.
>
> Is a non sequitur (A non sequitur is a statement, remark, or
conclusion that does not logically or naturally follow from what
came before it).
>
> Which is where you should start IMO.
>
> Without further explanation, IMO (and forgetting your
admissions on this forum) it is not possible to compile a
defence because the roles of 'customer' and 'driver' are not
explained. Is their claim that the driver was not a customer and
left the site and there was no 'customer', or that the driver
was the only customer (in the vehicle) and left the site? So is
the breach that 'customers' must remain on the site or that
'drivers' must, but 'customers' are not bound by any
restriction. Is the claimant saying that occupants of the car
are bound by the same contractual terms which bind the driver
and/or that the driver is responsible for occupants'
whereabouts?
>
> I haven't the foggiest idea!
>
> As regards 'non compliance', IMO previous posts have
overstated the requirement. Para. 9 of Sch. 4, which is the
relevant part, uses these terms regarding what a notice must
contain:
>
> State;
> Warn;
> Inform;
> Specify.
>
> Previous posts have not differentiated between their legal
meanings and IMO have sought to convey that para. 9 must be
included, implicitly verbatim, and that its provisions must
appear once only in a notice and in the same form as in Sch. 4.
>
> IMO, courts have discretion regarding determining compliance
i.e. is the meaning conveyed consistent with the purpose of
para. 9, not just whether every word appears.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you.
How about this:
DEFENCE
1.
The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety.
2.
It is admitted only that the Defendant is the registered keeper
of the vehicle referred to in the Particulars of Claim. Save for
that admission, every allegation is denied.
3.
The Particulars of Claim state only:
"Driver left site designated for customer parking only."
The Defendant is unable to determine from that wording the
factual or legal basis of the allegation.
The Particulars do not explain:
the contractual term allegedly breached;
the meaning or geographical extent of the alleged "site";
the conduct said to constitute the alleged breach;
whether the allegation concerns the driver, passengers, or both;
how the alleged breach was observed; or
the basis upon which the Claimant contends liability arises.
The Defendant should not be required to speculate as to the case
to be met.
4.
To the extent that the Claimant alleges that the driver left the
retail park in breach of the parking terms, that allegation is
expressly denied.
The Defendant's case is that the driver remained within the
retail park as a genuine customer of Decathlon before returning
directly to the vehicle and leaving the site. Accordingly, no
contractual breach occurred.
5.
The Defendant has consistently denied that the alleged breach
occurred from the earliest opportunity.
The Defendant's position is supported by contemporaneous
evidence created during the visit, which will be relied upon at
the witness statement stage.
6.
The photographs disclosed by the Claimant identify only the
presence of the parked vehicle. They do not, on their face,
evidence the alleged contractual breach pleaded in the
Particulars of Claim.
7.
If the Claimant maintains that the alleged contractual breach
occurred, it is required to prove:
(a) that the alleged conduct occurred;
(b) that the alleged conduct amounted to a breach of the
contractual terms relied upon;
(c) that the operative accurately observed the alleged conduct;
(d) that any observations relied upon were recorded
contemporaneously;
(e) that the contractual terms relied upon, including any
alleged prohibition upon leaving the site, were clearly,
prominently and unambiguously communicated to motorists; and
(f) that the Claimant possessed the necessary authority from the
landowner both to enter contracts with motorists and to pursue
this claim.
8.
Further, insofar as the Claimant seeks to establish keeper
liability pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012, such liability is denied.
The Defendant does not admit that the mandatory statutory
conditions required to invoke keeper liability have been
satisfied and puts the Claimant to strict proof of compliance
with the statutory requirements.
The Defendant reserves the right to amplify this issue should
the Claimant seek to rely upon Schedule 4 or should further
relevant information become available during the course of
proceedings.
9.
The Defendant disputes the additional sums claimed over and
above the original parking charge and requires the Claimant to
prove the contractual and legal basis upon which those
additional sums are said to be recoverable.
10.
For the reasons set out above, the Court is respectfully invited
to dismiss the claim.
#Post#: 126643--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: August 3, 2026, 1:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Looks good to me.
You could mention that this is a 'skeleton defence' based on the
loose wording in the POC.
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page