DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 126651--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
   DIR By: DontStandForNonsense
       Date: August 3, 2026, 3:44 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Okay,
       Now I think it is ready?
       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 claim.
       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.
       Given the limited and ambiguous wording of the Particulars of
       Claim, this Defence is necessarily confined to the matters that
       can reasonably be understood from the Claimant's pleading. The
       Defendant reserves the right to address any further or more
       particularised case advanced by the Claimant during the course
       of these proceedings.
       4.
       Without prejudice to the Defendant's position that the
       Particulars of Claim fail properly to identify the case to be
       met, if the Claimant's case is 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 statutory requirements
       necessary to establish keeper liability have been satisfied and
       puts the Claimant to strict proof that the conditions prescribed
       by Schedule 4 have been met.
       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.
       *****************************************************
       Page 7 of 7
   DIR Previous Page