Advice on Filing a Defence for Parking Fine Claim

[des8]

I think Savills manage the land for the landowner, whose identity could be ascertained by reference to Land Registry records.

There won't be any agreement between Excel and VCS, and even if there was VCS could not sue for breach of contract as they were not privy to the contract

[Silver Paw]

Good evening,

Below is my draft defence to be sent to the court via the post office . As usual I have marked with "X" the areas where my personal details needs to go. As instructed I have added point 2 under the introduction.

I have gone through this twice now but I still do not understand all these. I guess most of this is just legal stuff which is beyond me. There is one place where my car registration number needs to go, other than this I am not sure if any personal details need to be added to any parts of the body of this below.

So if I missed or fail to add some personal details then please let me know.

There are sections where there is a lot of dots, not sure if I am suppose to add anything there. for example under the section titled "LIABILITY AS THE RESISTED KEEPER"

at all material times the Defendant was ..... the driver ”.
Explanatory Notes, which states that:… The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges

so please let me know if I need to fill this dots with something and if so with what details.

I like you suggestion on making a counter claim, but I do not know how to go about it. If you can provide help and guidance it will be appreciated.


Do I submit the counter claim with the defense?
or
can I do it later this weekend after I posted the defense?

You mentioned in your post earlier about making a payment of Ł35.00 when I file the defence. So this money is for filing the defence or counterclaim.

I could not work this out form you post, so please explain. If I get any money from then I am happy to pass it on to the upkeep of this site. It will be my way of showing my appreciation.


I hope Excel Parking do not send me a demand for Ł100 afterwords once they realise the mistake .


Thank you very much

Regards



Money Claims online
County Court Business Centre
St Katharine’s House
21-27 St Katharine’s Street
NN1 2LH

My home address
XXXXX


Claim number: XXXXX
Claimant: Vehicle Control Service Limited
Reference: XXXXX
Defendant: XXXXXX



INTRODUCTION
Unless otherwise stated in this Defence:
i) the Defendant uses the same terminology as the Claimant has employed in the Particulars of Claim; and
ii) the Defendant denies each and every allegation or that the Claimant is entitled to any relief.

1. This claim has been issued against the Defendant in connection with the Defendant's refusal to pay a private parking charge which the Claimant alleges that the Defendant is liable to pay either as the driver of the vehicle or as the registered keeper. For the reasons set out in this Defence, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all.
2. It is noted the claimant is Vehicle Control Services Ltd (company no. 04298820), although the car park signs were in the name of Excel Parking services Ltd
   (company No 02878122), a separate legal entity. The claim indicates the alleged contract was formed by the car park signage, so the Defendant asserts that if there was
   any contract it would have been between the driver and Excel Parking Services Ltd. The principle of privity of Contract means that Vehicle Control Services Ltd were not a
   party to such a contract, and therefore have no standing to sue on it.
   
   The court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) (a) & (b) to strike out the claim as there is no basis to bring the claim and is an abuse of the court process
   
   and at the very end of your defence just before the statement of truth
   
   As a result of the Claimants’ unreasonable behaviour in filing this claim, the Court is respectfully invited to order the Claimants to pay the Defendants’ costs on an indemnity basis, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules, rule 27.14 (2) (g).

CLAIMANT'S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

1. By way of general comment, it should be noted that whilst the Defendant intends to respond to the issues raised by the Claimant in the Particulars of Claim, he cannot do so with complete accuracy because the Claimant has not pleaded its case in accordance with CPR 16.4(1)(a).. There is not a concise statement of the facts which discloses a cause of action, rather the Claimant has merely provided a series of generalised statements which in turn makes it difficult for the Defendant to respond as he does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant's case. For example, the particulars allege that the Defendant:
   1. is liable as the driver of the vehicle but does not indicate the basis of that allegation
   2. is liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle yet the Claimant has failed to particularise the basis of that allegation.
   3. claims "recovery of the parking charge notice contractual costs and interest" without indicating how the total is computed
2. The Defendant is surprised by the haziness of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a solicitor and as such, the lack of compliance with the CPR to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused. The court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.1 to

(i)make an order that unless the Defendant files and serves an amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant; or
(ii)if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim entirely as on the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action; and
(iii)exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit.

APPLICABLE LAW

1. Section 56 together with Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) provides landowners with powers to manage parking on their land. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 of POFA stipulates that the liability for an unpaid parking charge may only be transferred from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle if certain conditions as prescribed in Schedule 4 are met.

LIABILITY AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE

1. The Claimant has failed to provide any supporting evidence that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. Accordingly, the Claimant's allegation is entirely baseless and nothing more than a fishing expedition which the Defendant considers to be an abuse of process.
2. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraph, the Claimant has not provided any evidence establishing that the Claimant has authority to manage the car park or enforce its regulations by way of issuing parking charge notices pursuant to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012.
3. In the absence of evidence that the Defendant was the driver, it is the Defendant's contention, and the court is invited to make an inference, that the Claimant has no lawful basis to pursue the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle.
4. If (which the Defendant denies), the Defendant is found to be liable for the Parking Charge as the driver, the Defendant will say that the Parking Charge is not enforceable on the basis that the terms were contrary to the requirement of good faith which causes a significant imbalance under the contract to the detriment of the Defendant. Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on the Defendant pursuant to section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.(CRA) The Defendant will rely on Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which requires that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language. The Defendant contends that the term referring to the charges on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that:

(i))the sign refers to ‘charges' but fails to explain what charges the Claimant is seeking to recover. Accordingly, the term described is vague and ambiguous contrary to the guidance published by the Competition and Markets Authority on unfair contract terms.
(ii) In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116. The S C found the parking charge (Ł85) was a genuine estimate of the costs of operating the parking scheme including losses suffered by the operator if its terms and conditions were not complied with (see paras 188 and 193 of the judgment).
(iii) In this claim unspecified "contractual costs" (presumably the charges" mentioned on the signs) additional to the parking charge may involve an element of double recovery and is an abuse of process that may taint the entirety of the claim and permit the Court to strike out the claim (CPR3 4 (2) (b))

5, additionally the Defendant has, subsequent to receiving this claim, noted that the signs in the car park are so positioned that a driver could easily not notice them as they are neither well positioned
nor prominent from all parking bays

LIABILITY AS THE REGISTERED KEEPER

1.It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration XXXXXX
2 It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to recover the Parking Charge from the Defendant as registered keeper of the vehicle:
i).The Claimant can only transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the Driver to the Registered Keeper by complying with conditions mandated in Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
PoFA Schedule 4 para 9 (2) (a) states "The notice[to keeper} must specify.... the period of parking to which the notice relates"
The Notice to Keeper does not specify a period so liability for any unpaid charge cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper

ii).Contrary to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant failed to provide evidence that it has the right to enforce against the driver
of the vehicle the requirement to pay the Parking Charge. The Claimant has failed to supply:
(a)a copy of the written contract setting out the Claimant’s authority to enforce and/or pursue the Parking Charge against the driver; and
(b)what (if any) conditions may be attached as regards the recovery of the Parking Charge.

iii).Contrary to PoFA 2012 sch4 condition 5(1)(b), the Claimant knew the identity of the driver prior to the commencement of these
proceedings. In the particulars of claim it is stated "at all material times the Defendant was ..... the driver ”. In light of that allegation, it is
implied that the Claimant has actual knowledge of the driver’s identity and so the Defendant cannot be held liable for the Parking
Charge as the registered keeper, and the Claimant must pursue the driver of the vehicle only. The Defendant will seek to rely on
paragraph 221 of the POFA 2012 Explanatory Notes, which states that:… The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other
means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to
the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity (emphasis added)


Recovery of Claimant’s costs associated with the Parking Charge

1.To the extent that the Claimant seeks to recover the costs incurred in pursuing the Parking Charge, the Defendant denies that such sums are recoverable for the following reasons:
(i)The costs sought by the Claimant are based upon a contractual right under the terms of the parking contract. It is well established
under the doctrine of privity that a person who is not party to the contract cannot sue or be sued. Any contractual relationship in
respect of the parking and the alleged contravention was solely between the Claimant and the driver of the vehicle, not the
registered keeper; and
(ii)also paragraph 4(5) of POFA provides that the maximum amount which may be recovered from the registered keeper is the total
amount of the unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to the registered keeper. The unpaid parking charges specified in the
notice were Ł100.

It follows that any liability owed by the keeper to the Claimant is several to the driver’s liability and is limited to an amount that does not exceed the unpaid parking charges. The Claimant’s pursuit of these contractual costs is not recoverable and amounts to an abuse of process.


CONCLUSION

For the reasons as set out in this Defence, the Claimant is not entitled to pursue the Defendant as either the registered keeper or the driver of the vehicle for the Parking Charge or costs/damages

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true

Name ……………………………..
Signature ………………………..
Date……………………………….

[Silver Paw]

Hello DES8

I have just spotted my notes to follow up regarding your reply on 7th June 2025, 20:47:PM

you have mentioned

"Do not send your defence yet ... if the documentation requested in your CPR is forthcoming you will need to amend some sections
Also I have not been able to read the small print on the parking sign. I have guessed at its terminology, but you need to check it and perhaps amend the suggested wording if you intend to use it"

I hope there is nothing useful in the small print .

Thank you

[des8]

Good evening,

Below is my draft defence to be sent to the court via the post office . As usual I have marked with "X" the areas where my personal details needs to go. As instructed I have added point 2 under the introduction.

I have gone through this twice now but I still do not understand all these. I guess most of this is just legal stuff which is beyond me. There is one place where my car registration number needs to go, other than this I am not sure if any personal details need to be added to any parts of the body of this below.
If there are parts you do not understand let us know so we can explain it.. You could be questioned about your defence in court
I have re organised parts of the defence, and changed the wording of the statement of truth

So if I missed or fail to add some personal details then please let me know.

There are sections where there is a lot of dots, not sure if I am suppose to add anything there. for example under the section titled "LIABILITY AS THE RESISTED KEEPER"

at all material times the Defendant was ..... the driver ”.
Explanatory Notes, which states that:… The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges

so please let me know if I need to fill this dots with something and if so with what details.
The dots indicate where words have been omitted from quoted sections
I like you suggestion on making a counter claim, but I do not know how to go about it. If you can provide help and guidance it will be appreciated.


Do I submit the counter claim with the defense?
Yes
or
can I do it later this weekend after I posted the defense?
No
You mentioned in your post earlier about making a payment of Ł35.00 when I file the defence. So this money is for filing the defence or counterclaim.
for the counterclaim

I could not work this out form you post, so please explain. If I get any money from then I am happy to pass it on to the upkeep of this site. It will be my way of showing my appreciation.


I hope Excel Parking do not send me a demand for Ł100 afterwords once they realise the mistake .
Unlikely


Thank you very much

Regards



Money Claims online
County Court Business Centre
St Katharine’s House
21-27 St Katharine’s Street
NN1 2LH

My home address
XXXXX


Claim number: XXXXX
Claimant: Vehicle Control Service Limited
Reference: XXXXX
Defendant: XXXXXX



INTRODUCTION
Unless otherwise stated in this Defence:
i) the Defendant uses the same terminology as the Claimant has employed in the Particulars of Claim; and
ii) the Defendant denies each and every allegation or that the Claimant is entitled to any relief.

1. This claim has been issued against the Defendant in connection with the Defendant's refusal to pay a private parking charge which the Claimant alleges that the Defendant is liable to pay either as the driver of the vehicle or as the registered keeper. For the reasons set out in this Defence, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all.
2. It is noted the claimant is Vehicle Control Services Ltd (company no. 04298820), although the car park signs were in the name of Excel Parking services Ltd
   (company No 02878122), a separate legal entity. The claim indicates the alleged contract was formed by the car park signage, so the Defendant asserts that if there was any contract it would have been between the driver and Excel Parking Services Ltd. The principle of privity of Contract means that Vehicle Control Services Ltd were not a party to such a contract, and therefore have no standing to sue on it.
   
   The court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) (a) & (b) to strike out the claim as there is no basis to bring the claim and is an abuse of the court process

I have moved a sentence from here to correct position at bottom of defence
CLAIMANT'S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

1. By way of general comment, it should be noted that whilst the Defendant intends to respond to the issues raised by the Claimant in the Particulars of Claim, he cannot do so with complete accuracy because the Claimant has not pleaded its case in accordance with CPR 16.4(1)(a).. There is not a concise statement of the facts which discloses a cause of action, rather the Claimant has merely provided a series of generalised statements which in turn makes it difficult for the Defendant to respond as he does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant's case. For example, the particulars allege that the Defendant:
   1. is liable as the driver of the vehicle but does not indicate the basis of that allegation
   2. is liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle yet the Claimant has failed to particularise the basis of that allegation.
   3. claims "recovery of the parking charge notice contractual costs and interest" without indicating how the total is computed
2. The Defendant is surprised by the haziness of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a solicitor and as such, the lack of compliance with the CPR to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused. The court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.1 to:

(i)make an order that unless the Defendant files and serves an amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant; or
(ii)if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim entirely as on the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action; and
(iii)exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit.

APPLICABLE LAW

1. Section 56 together with Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) provides landowners with powers to manage parking on their land. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 of POFA stipulates that the liability for an unpaid parking charge may only be transferred from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle if certain conditions as prescribed in Schedule 4 are met.

LIABILITY AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE

1. The Claimant has failed to provide any supporting evidence that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. Accordingly, the Claimant's allegation is entirely baseless and nothing more than a fishing expedition which the Defendant considers to be an abuse of process.
2. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraph, the Claimant has not provided any evidence establishing that the Claimant has authority to manage the car park or enforce its regulations by way of issuing parking charge notices pursuant to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012.
3. In the absence of evidence that the Defendant was the driver, it is the Defendant's contention, and the court is invited to make an inference, that the Claimant has no lawful basis to pursue the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle.
4. If (which the Defendant denies), the Defendant is found to be liable for the Parking Charge as the driver, the Defendant will say that the Parking Charge is not enforceable on the basis that the terms were contrary to the requirement of good faith which causes a significant imbalance under the contract to the detriment of the Defendant. Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on the Defendant pursuant to section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.(CRA) The Defendant will rely on Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which requires that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language. The Defendant contends that the term referring to the charges on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that:

(i))the sign refers to ‘charges' but fails to explain what charges the Claimant is seeking to recover. Accordingly, the term described is vague and ambiguous contrary to the guidance published by the Competition and Markets Authority on unfair contract terms.
(ii) In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116. The S C found the parking charge (Ł85) was a genuine estimate of the costs of operating the parking scheme including losses suffered by the operator if its terms and conditions were not complied with (see paras 188 and 193 of the judgment).
(iii) In this claim unspecified "contractual costs" (presumably the charges" mentioned on the signs) additional to the parking charge may involve an element of double recovery and is an abuse of process that may taint the entirety of the claim and permit the Court to strike out the claim (CPR3 4 (2) (b))

5, additionally the Defendant has, subsequent to receiving this claim, noted that the signs in the car park are so positioned that a driver could easily not notice them as
they are neither well positioned nor prominent from all parking bays

LIABILITY AS THE REGISTERED KEEPER

1.It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration XXXXXX
2 It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to recover the Parking Charge from the Defendant as registered keeper of the vehicle:
i).The Claimant can only transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the Driver to the Registered Keeper by complying with conditions mandated in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

PoFA Schedule 4 para 9 (2) (a) states "The notice[to keeper} must specify.... the period of parking to which the notice relates"
The Notice to Keeper does not specify a period so liability for any unpaid charge cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper

ii).Contrary to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant failed to provide evidence that it has the right to enforce against the driver
of the vehicle the requirement to pay the Parking Charge. The Claimant has failed to supply:
(a)a copy of the written contract setting out the Claimant’s authority to enforce and/or pursue the Parking Charge against the driver; and
(b)what (if any) conditions may be attached as regards the recovery of the Parking Charge.

iii).Contrary to PoFA 2012 sch4 condition 5(1)(b), the Claimant knew the identity of the driver prior to the commencement of these
proceedings. In the particulars of claim it is stated "at all material times the Defendant was ..... the driver ”. In light of that allegation, it is
implied that the Claimant has actual knowledge of the driver’s identity and so the Defendant cannot be held liable for the Parking
Charge as the registered keeper, and the Claimant must pursue the driver of the vehicle only. The Defendant will seek to rely on
paragraph 221 of the POFA 2012 Explanatory Notes, which states that:… The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity (emphasis added)


Recovery of Claimant’s costs associated with the Parking Charge

1.To the extent that the Claimant seeks to recover the costs incurred in pursuing the Parking Charge, the Defendant denies that such sums are recoverable for the following reasons:
(i)The costs sought by the Claimant are based upon a contractual right under the terms of the parking contract. It is well established
under the doctrine of privity that a person who is not party to the contract cannot sue or be sued. Any contractual relationship in
respect of the parking and the alleged contravention was solely between the Claimant and the driver of the vehicle, not the
registered keeper; and
(ii)also paragraph 4(5) of POFA provides that the maximum amount which may be recovered from the registered keeper is the total
amount of the unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to the registered keeper. The unpaid parking charges specified in the
notice were Ł100.

It follows that any liability owed by the keeper to the Claimant is several to the driver’s liability and is limited to an amount that does not exceed the unpaid parking charges. The Claimant’s pursuit of these contractual costs is not recoverable and amounts to an abuse of process.


CONCLUSION

For the reasons as set out in this Defence, the Claimant is not entitled to pursue the Defendant as either the registered keeper or the driver of the vehicle for the Parking Charge or costs/damages
As a result of the Claimants’ unreasonable behaviour in filing this claim, the Court is respectfully invited to order the Claimants to pay the Defendants’ costs on an indemnity basis, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules, rule 27.14 (2) (g).

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth


Name ……………………………..
Signature ………………………..
Date……………………………….

Have tidied up the layout a bit but that's all.
Up to you if you want to make a counterclaim, but some find it becomes complicated.
The filing fee is Ł35 for claims up to Ł300, but Ł50 for claims up to Ł500

Don't forget to send copy of defence to ELMS

[Silver Paw]

Hello DES8,

Thank you for the revised version of the court submission . Also thank you for the explanations above.

Are you able to explain what sort of complications that can arise from making a counter claim please?

Would there be more paperwork to fill later on other then the this form N9B ( SDT) which I have to send back to the court?
or
the case will be dragged on for longer causing problems of having to file paperwork on time?

I was under the impression that both the claimant's case and the defendant's counter claim will be looked at by the court at the same time and decided upon.

One of the reason for me thinking about making the counterclaim is because, this issue has caused me a lot of stress, on top of what I was dealing with medically. It has also wasted a lot of my time in looking for help and reading up about this matter online. Therefore I was thinking of giving Vehicle Control Services Ltd a bit of hustle in return. Plus it will cost them money by way of law firm fees. I think lawyers charge by the minute.

I will discuss this with my partner tonight to establish what his thoughts on making a counterclaim.

Tomorrow afternoon I will either send the defence only or the defence and the counter claim below and a cheque for Ł50.00 to the court.

I will not be filling in sections 3 and 4 by hand. I am only going to put a note in the box to say that they should refer to the attached pages and put the page numbers there.

I will put the claim reference on each page at the top right hand side.

Could you also let me know if I have to send a copy of the form N9B ( SDT) to ELMS Legal ? or send them only what you have helped me type up for sections 3 and 4 (only if making a counterclaim). I do not want to give out details of my date of birth, and phone number which I have to fill in section 5 of this form to ELMS Legal.

Below is by draft for the counterclaim section of the form N9B. Please could you check and let me now if I have included all the details.

Thank you

Regards

Money Claims online
County Court Business Centre
St Katharine’s House
21-27 St Katharine’s Street
NN1 2LH

My Home address
xxxxxxxx

Date:20 June 2025


Claim number: XXXXXXX
Claimant: Vehicle Control Service Limited
Reference: XXXXXXXX
Defendant: XXXXXXX



XXXXXXXXX V Vehicle Control Services Limited




COUNTERCLAIM



1. The Defendant repeats the defence above, in support of the counterclaim.

2. As noted in my Defence Vehicle Control Systems Ltd. had no right to claim against the Defendant, nor to obtain the Defendant's data, either from DVLA or Excel Parking Systems Ltd

3. This counterclaim is for damages for distress and loss, caused by breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act (the DPA 2018).

4 The Claimants have erroneously attached the Defendant's data to this case and issued the claim in circumstances where there could be no cause of action, causing loss and distress to the Defendant. The Defendant’s data is personal data within the meaning of the DPA 2018 and the associated General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

5. Accordingly, at all material times the Claimants were data controllers, and the Defendant a data subject, within the meaning of the Acts. The Claimants were thereby under a statutory duty to process the Defendant’s data only in strict accordance with the DPA 2018 and the GDPR Articles 5 (1)(a) and (b) and 6 (1)(f)).

6 Article 5 of the GDPR sets out seven key principles which lie at the heart of the general data protection regime. These are broadly the same as the DPA Principles. Article 5(1) requires that personal data shall be:
“(a) processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to individuals (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency’);
(b) collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes; (‘purpose limitation’);
(c) adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed (‘data minimisation’);
(d) accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay (‘accuracy’);
(e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed (‘storage limitation’);
(f) processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate measures (‘integrity and confidentiality’).”

7. Article 5(2) adds that: “The controller shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate compliance with, paragraph 1 (‘accountability’).”

8. Article 6(1)f of the GDPR states an exemption if processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data.

9. None of the above conditions applied. Accordingly the processing of the Defendant’s data was not “necessary for the performance of, or commencing, a contract” and nor, since further communication with the Defendant had no prospect of furthering their purpose, did the Claimants have any legitimate cause to continue processing the Defendant's data.

10. In accordance with the DPA 2018 and the GDPR, they were not permitted to either process, keep or share the Defendant's data. In summary, the Claimants as data controllers were and continue to be in breach of their statutory duty under the DPA as follows :-
i) by obtaining and processing the Defendant’s personal data without a lawful basis for the claim, contrary to the DPA Principles and GDPR article 5(1)(a) and
ii) by processing the Defendant’s personal data unlawfully and unfairly and for a purpose other than pursuing the Claimants’ legitimate interests, contrary to the DPA 2018 and GDPR article 5 (1) (a) and (b) and article 6 (1)(f).

Damages
1. By reason of the matters aforesaid, the Defendant was distressed by this claim and suffered serious distress and anxiety as a result of this baseless claim and relies upon the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Vidal-Hall v Google Inc (2015) EWCA 311, in that compensation for pure distress is capable of being claimed, notwithstanding actual loss. The Defendant has suffered substantial damage and respectfully seeks damages in the sum of Ł500 pursuant to GDPR Article 82 and the 2018 Act sections 168-169.

AND THE DEFENDANT COUNTERCLAIMS:-

1. Compensation in the sum of: Ł500.00
2. Court fees: Ł 50.00 (plus a hearing fee, in the event of the Claimant discontinuing)
3. Interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984, at such rates / for such periods on the sums found due to the Defendant as the Court may deem fit.
4. Costs to be assessed. As a result of the Claimants’ unreasonable behaviour in filing this claim, the Court is respectfully invited to order the Claimants to pay the Defendants’ costs on an indemnity basis, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules, rule 27.14 (2) (g).

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts contained in this Defence and Counterclaim are true.

Name …………..…………………………..
Signature ………….………………………..
Date ………………………

[des8]

Complications arise because people become confused with who is claimant and who the defendant as positions are reversed in the counter claim.
The original claimant becomes the respondent to the counterclaim and must respond with a defence to the counterclaim.
The original defendant becomes the counter claimant.
For some reason the terminology seems to cause confusion for some people.

The respondent has to file a defence, to which you may wish to respond

Send ELMS a copy of the form, but blank out the personal info.
Technically you don't have to send it to the claimant as the court will, but it is a normally extended courtesy.
You might not feel very courteous towards them, but always retain the moral high ground1

[Silver Paw]

Hello DES8,

On 20th June 25 I sent the defence including the counter claim plus a cheque for Ł50.00 to the court and obtained a certificate of posting from the post master. I also sent a copy of this to ELMS legal as advised and got a certificate of posting.

I also received the reply on 24.06.25 to my subject access request sent on 6th June 25.

Items included in the mail were

1) Cover letter dated 20th June 25
2) A page with my car details and address ( presumably obtained form DVLA)
3) Several pictures of the car taken at various angles
4) Copy of the notice to keeper 28.08.24
5) copy of the final reminder dated 26.09.24
6) copy of my letter requesting the details with a stamp marked received 9th Jun 25

I got my partner to upload them on to the link below, provided in two sections. Please copy and paste them together.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/

1qbCweyn_HqGI8ZwioX1N2vm3S7b01_iD?usp=drive_link


One photo clearly showing the wheels of the car to the left parked next to my car inside my car bay. I wonder if they sent a fine to the driver of the BMW also. My partner works in accounts and he looked at the companies house filing for Excel Parking during our discussion on 19th June 25. Please see attached a link below if your interested. The accounts filed on 6th Jan 2025 shows cash at bank of Ł15,609,809 to their year end 30 April 2024 on page 12 (company balance sheet)


https://find-and-update.company-info...filing-history


The company is cash rich thanks to the extortion scheme they are running (in my opinion) . I made up my mind to make the counterclaim when my partner showed me the company balance sheet.

Many thanks for your help again.

Regards

[Silver Paw]

Hello all,

On Monday I have received a reply from the court and it is dated the 3rd July 25 Regarding this matter,

It says Notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track. Address for the return of paperwork is in Sheffield. It states that they offer free mediation service on page 2 and that if I do not attend mediation then I am subject to penalties. Surely not everyone have time for this. Plus I am not in a position to attend a court far from where I live. It will cost me more in train tickets and hotel accommodation.

I would have to make it clear to them that if there is going to be a hearing it would have to be close to the area where I am located. Hopefully you can help me word this correctly on this form N180.

It is stated in the paperwork that I should reply before 21st July 25.

I would be grateful if you could advise me on how to complete sections C though to F on the form N180.

Please see attached link below.

Many thanks in advance.

Regards

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tB6...usp=drive_link

[des8]

Form n180 complete as follows

C1 tick "yes"
D1 tick "no"
reason: "The claimant does not appear to have standing in this matter.
This was pointed out in the defence but the claimant continues to pursue the matter.
I think this needs to be discussed in open court"
E complete appropriately
F1 enter details of your local court
Reason " as Defendant & Litigant in Person as per CPR 26.2.
Attendance at Sheffield impractical as resident in (your town)"
F2 tick "no"
F3 "one"
F4 complete appropriately
F5 tick "no"
F6 tick appropriate box


Regarding mediation:
This is carried out over the phone.
You only speak to the mediator who shuffles between you.
Make a note of your main points, especially the fact that the car park is trun by EXCEL, but you are being pursued by VCS, who have no standing in the matter

I can't access your attachment, but hope I have addressed your concerns

[Silver Paw]

Morning,

Thank you for the help and guidance. I will fill up the form N180 over this weekend.

I think I have to put up the like in two sections when I put them up next time.

Regards

[Silver Paw]

Good evening,

Today I have received an Acknowledgement of service form N9 dated 4^th July 25. It was posted 5^th July 2025 based on post mark. It appears to be for the counterclaim I made.

-Return address on the postage label on the envelop is that of ELMS Legal Ltd.
-On the Acknowledgement it has ELMS Legal Ltd as the defendant’s full name if different from the name given on the claim form.
-It also lists ELMS Legal Ltd address for documents to be sent
-In the right side, it has Sheffield County court
-Claim number the same as before
-Claimant as the Vehicle Control Service with the PCN reference number from the Notice to Keeper.
-Defendant as my name

I hope there is no need for me to send anything to ELMS Legal Ltd.

The form also has the “I intend to defend all of this claim” ticked. I presume they mean that they are looking to defend my counterclaim. If so should they send me details of what they use as defence against breach of data protection law?



I redacted picture of the form is uploaded to the link below. I have split it up to stop it getting shrunk. Try copy and paste them together. Hope it works.

Thank you

Regards

https://drive.google.com/file/d/175Ad0C-

dVsF4Cipj8cyEBHrDho6nl23z/view?usp=drive_link

[Silver Paw]

Good afternoon DES8,

I think I need to send to the courts some pictures and videos I have taken of the sign at the entrance at the retail park and the other sign in existence at various location in the retail park , Because they do not match the picture submitted to the courts with form N180 by ELMS Legal.

The picture I have from the retail park do not have any reference to Vehicle Control Service at the bottom of the sign (the contract in their terms) . However the picture sent to the court by ELMS Legal shows this. To me, it is border line fraud. I am not sure how the lawyers can submit a copy of the sign that is not displayed at the retail park.

I have not attached any pictures to any submission I made to the court so far. This is because there was no reference in the paperwork asking me to do so. I thought that I would be asked to show the picture and videos I have taken at a later date.

I am only thinking this because of the reply received for the N180 from ELMS Legal.

I had already posted the N180 last week, So Should I send the pictures marked as exhibits 1 and 2 to the N180 via e-mail ? or should I send it via post on Monday 21st and obtain a proof of posting? I can put the video clips on a USB stick.

The deadline for form N180 is 21st July 25, hence why I am asking if I should send the pictures and videos via e-mail ? or Can I still send supporting documents to N180 any time after 21.July 25 up the hearing date?


Please advise me.


Many thanks

Regards

P.S
Could you please speak to the owner of this site on my behalf and ask if s/he would be willing to grant me access to upload documents when I post messages.

I have tried my best by uploading the information to two different places, however you were not able to access them or accessed them with difficulty as you mentioned that you can only see the first picture.

I cannot understand why a site will not grant access to uploading images when we are trying to get help.

Thank you

[des8]

No need to send the court photos or anything else at this stage.
Those items will be included in your Witness Statement at a later date.

Looks as if they have become confused as to who is counter claimant & who defendant, but never mind

It might be worth sending an email to Sheffield County Court reminding them you are a litigant in Person and as per CPR26.2 you would appreciate the case being moved to your local court as you cannot reasonably attend at Sheffield without an overnight stay.
In the subject line put the case number and VSC Vs Silver Paw

Referring your PS in post 42 to EXC for advice

[EXC]

P.S
Could you please speak to the owner of this site on my behalf and ask if s/he would be willing to grant me access to upload documents when I post messages.

I have tried my best by uploading the information to two different places, however you were not able to access them or accessed them with difficulty as you mentioned that you can only see the first picture.

I cannot understand why a site will not grant access to uploading images when we are trying to get help.

Thank you

I'm not quite sure what the problem is but if you email them to me I'll post them for you, probably first thing. It's nick@legalbeaglesgroup.com

[Silver Paw]

Good day DES8,


I hope the owner of this site Nick, would have sent you the details I received yesterday from ELMS legal.
.

I understand from your reply yesterday that I do not needs to send anything to the court now and details can be included in the witness statement.

However I am somewhat puzzled by the defence to the counterclaim I made by ELMS Legal.

Please advise on the following.

1. In their reply dated 9^th June 25 ELMS Legal sent me a copy of the contract between landlords’ agent Savills and Excel parking dated 30^th April 2024 and pictures of the several signs which shows Excel Parking. You are the first one to pick up on this. You replied to me and told me to check the name on the sign and the name on the claimant.

1. ELMS Legal did not provide the contract dated 28.05.2019 between the agent to landlord Savills and Vehicles Control Services. Should this not be sent to me when they send me the reply with the other contract if they intended to use this as evidence in the court?

1. I am not an expert in the matters of contract between business. I am just using my common sense. I would have thought that the contact between Savills and Excel parking dated 30^th April 2024 will be the most up to date and it will supersede any previous contract.

1. The picture of the parking sign/ contract In front of Halfords supplied to me in their reply dated 9^th June 25 by ELMS Legal is not the same supplied with N180. It looks altered. It appears as thought the bottom part where it shows Excel Parking Services got replaced with Vehicle Control Services. I would say it would be something link a magnetic strip with Vehicle Control Services details that can be quickly attached to the metal board. Take a picture then removed it.

Thank you
Regards