BW Legal/UK Parking Patrol - County Court letter received

[Invertigo]

Good morning all, hoping for some advice/guidance on a ticket that has reached the stage of the claimant (UKPP) issuing a claim through BW Legal. It's the initial court claim letter as below, I've already submitted by AoS so have 28 days from date of service to respond with my defence.

The facts are as below:

The driver was a resident at the premises where the ticket was issued. The driver was a tenant and thus was provided a tenancy agreement by the landlords agent. This agreement was silent on any parking restrictions. The driver was also provided a key fob with their rental, which granted access to the enclosed parking areas. I would argue that this is the driver being provided unfettered access to use the facilities?

The signage in place at the time, despite the claim from BW Legal in their response below, in fact references the company 'UK Parking Patrol', a BPA accredited operator and a trading name of a Sole Trader, Mr Steve Chatham. The PCN and NTK both are from 'UK Parking Patrol Office Limited', an IPC accredited limited company. Therefore, even if a contract was formed, it was with a different company to that which is claiming it.

The signage is also prohibitive. There is no offer, thus cannot form a contract as a contract, by definition, requires offer and accepance.

The NTK and PCN both fail to meet the requirements set out in PoFA. Schedule 4 paragraph 7 stipulates that the PCN must contain the period that the car was parked for (only contains a single time, 10:15), fully detailed parking charges and a maximum cost (merely states 'additional charges may be added'). Paragraph 8 and 9 stipulate similar requirements for the NTK, the claimant has failed to meet these obligations again by not providing a parking period, failing to provide a maximum charge they seek to reclaim (you'll notice the claim for their costs are higher than any signage or NTK suggests), also there is no offer of discounted payment or appeal allowances, although I dont know if this is a requirement?. Either way, both documents fail to satisfy Paragraph 6 and thus the NTK cannot be considered valid.

Find below a selection of ducments, including the court letter, BW Legals response to my request of further information and their copy of the NTK (however they did not provide me with a copy of the PCN, surely this is also required as evidence?) and their alleged signage, which is clearly a scan and is not date/time stamped. My own photo of the signage is also attached, showing the discrepancies in operator.

Would appreciate any assistance in writing up a defence as thoroughly as possible, this is all new to me but I'm not about to bend over and let these thieves try and charge me for the driver parking at their property.








upload images



Original PCN

[Invertigo]

Anyone able to offer any advice for my defence? Will be getting it in this week I think, or at least getting a draft ready

[ostell]

Does this help:

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

[Invertigo]

So, I've drafted the folowing defence:

Let it be established that I have no legal training or experience, thus I would request the Court understand my lack of detailed legal knowledge.

The claimant states that there was adequate signage in place to form a contract. I dispute this for the following reasons:
The signage in place was under the name of “UK Parking Patrol Office”, a trading name of a sole trader and a British Parking Association accredited operator. The Notice to Driver, Notice to Keeper and further communication including this court action are from a company “UK Parking Patrol Office Limited”, a limited company and an IPC accredited operator. Therefore I would state that the company pursuing these claims has never had the opportunity to form any sort of contract with the driver, as they had no signage displaying their name or credentials in place. Thus, the claimant has no interest in this matter.
The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.


The driver at the time of issue was a resident within the premises for which the car parking was utilised as a residents car park. The resident had a tenancy agreement which has primacy of contract over any agreement between the landowner and the claimant. The tenancy agreement agreed to by the driver offers zero requirements for permits to be displayed. In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park. In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.


The Claimant is attempted to recoup costs of £193.88 yet has offered no clarification to justify these costs. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E it was established that ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not apply to residential parking, therefore this excessive claim should be considered a penalty and unfair consumer charge unless it is found the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or there is commercial justification.


The claimant has offered no evidence that the vehicle was parked for any period of time. As such, there is no evidence of the vehicle being ‘parked’. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading.


The claimant is attempting to claim for £60 as described as “legal costs”, a sum which is not recoverable through this Court as it goes against the principles of Small Claims Court.


The claimant is attempting to claim for £33.88 in interest charges from 02/03/2016 to 20/10/2020. The excessive time period is a result of their own tardiness as bringing about a claim and thus cannot be reasonably justified as an unavoidable loss.
The delay in progressing this issue to a claim is also an example of Laches, whereby the defendant may well have less evidence to rely upon due to the intentional delay in issuing proceedings by the claimant.


The claimant has confirmed that they are pursuing myself (the defendant) as the ‘Registered Keeper’ of the vehicle. To do so, the claimant is required to follow the requirements as set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. They have failed to meet the following requirements:
Paragraph 4, (2) (a) requires that “the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met”, yet this is not the case as follows:
Paragraph 5, (1) (a) The creditor has the right to enforce against the driver. The driver was at the time of issue a resident of the premises. The driver’s tenancy agreement offers absolutely no requirements for permits to be displayed to park in the spaces which they had been given unfettered access to.
Paragraph 7, (2) (a) offers a requirement for the period of time to which the notice relates to be clearly noted on the notice to driver. This is not present.
7, (2) (c) “inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the time specified under paragraph (f);” the claimant is attempting to reclaim costs higher than that which is contained within the notice to driver.
Paragraph 8 (2) (a) the Notice to Keeper again fails to specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.
Paragraph 8, (2) (c) “repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);” The same failure to 7 (2) (c) above.
Paragraph 8 (2) (g) The notice to keeper offers no discount for prompt payment.
Paragraph 8 (7) No evidence was provided alongside the NtK as required.

[ostell]

You start with the fact that there was no contract in place because of the primacy of your lease

8 (2) (g) only applies if any are available. Non available then not needed. Probably on the NTD
8 (7) only if the evidence is required, which it isn't

[Invertigo]

You start with the fact that there was no contract in place because of the primacy of your lease

8 (2) (g) only applies if any are available. Non available then not needed. Probably on the NTD
8 (7) only if the evidence is required, which it isn't

To clarify, it was the driver who had a tenancy agreement. As the claimant has no knowledge or evidence to ascertain the driver, I'm considering if this point is worth omitting as I would assume the tenancy agreement will have to be submitted as evidence before any court case, which would then reveal the identity of the driver?

Also, I assume evidence gets submitted at a later date? Or does it go with the defence now?

[ostell]

Evidence goes with the witness statement later

[Invertigo]

Thanks. Well my defence has been emailed in and upon logging into my account I can see it's ben marked as defence received, so guess it's just wait and see now? Presumably the next step will be BW Legal contacting me trying to tell me my arguments wont work etc and I should just pay up!

[Invertigo]

Letter from the court today asking me to nominate my preferred court etc, assume this is just standard practice after filing a defence?

It also mentions the option of Mediation, I believe the correct response is to reject this? As far as I am concerned I don't have anything to answer for, so I can't offer any flexibility as mediation would undoubtedly require.

[ostell]

Yes this is a standard form. Complete it and one copy to the court and another to the opposition. Agree to mediation. You will give them £5 to go away. It looks good if you accept it, if it doesn't go well then it proceeds to court. It's on a without prejudice basis.

[Invertigo]

I'm very much of the opinion that I won't be giving them a penny unless a court orders it, and I have no doubts in the defence I have, so the only outcome I'm going to be happy with is a total dismissal. So, is it really worth me having another hour of my time spent on something that will have no positive outcome?

[ostell]

It looks good to the court. It could very well be 5 minutes