Parking Eye - Received letter before Country Court Claim

[des8]

Not suitable for paper hearing as there are matters of fact and legal questions to be decided

[ognuttah]

Not suitable for paper hearing as there are matters of fact and legal questions to be decided

Hi Des,

Hope you're well, in good health and having a wonderful day.

Just wanted to give an update that there was a mediation call today. We were not able to come to a final settlement so will go to court now.. (which I think we expected anyway)

One thing that stood out to me is that they said the regulations they follow do not require them to have 'lit' signs in the night which did strike me as odd, however it may have also been a scare tactic to get me to fold..

I imagine I will have to prepare my defense shortly, I will let you know once court docs arrive through post.

Kind regards,

[des8]

By their "regulations" I assume they mean those found in the BPA Operator's Code of Practice
The current code requires "Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand"
And that includes in the dark!

You might as well start drafting your witness statement now so you don't have to rush it later
If you want we can give it the once over and suggest possible tweaks

[ognuttah]

Hi Des,

Hope you're well, in good health and having a wonderful day.

Just wanted to give an update that there was a mediation call today. We were not able to come to a final settlement so will go to court now.. (which I think we expected anyway)

One thing that stood out to me is that they said the regulations they follow do not require them to have 'lit' signs in the night which did strike me as odd, however it may have also been a scare tactic to get me to fold..

I imagine I will have to prepare my defense shortly, I will let you know once court docs arrive through post.

Kind regards,

Hi Des,

Thanks again as always for your prompt and confident responses.

Not had any court documents through yet, however have drafted a defence..

Is there any way for me to send you a private message? Just feel as though putting my defense into public domain may be a bit sensitive, particularly with all the profiling and data miners these big corporations have access too these days.. haha

Kind regards,

[des8]

PMs can be sent via the envelope icon at the top of the page.
However they are discouraged by the site, as it is considered safer to keep matters on open forum.
Also posters then have oversight by other members so errors can be corrected and possible alternate actions considered.

In any event your defence will be posted to the claimant long before any hearing, and we know that Parking companies do keep an eye on these fora

[ognuttah]

PMs can be sent via the envelope icon at the top of the page.
However they are discouraged by the site, as it is considered safer to keep matters on open forum.
Also posters then have oversight by other members so errors can be corrected and possible alternate actions considered.

In any event your defence will be posted to the claimant long before any hearing, and we know that Parking companies do keep an eye on these fora

Hi Des,

In that case, here it is;

1. The Defendant received the claim X from claimant ‘ParkingEye Ltd’ on 22/03/2025. (Issue date 10 March 2025)
2. Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defense.
3. It seems this claim is for breach of a contract to park at 131 Alfreton Road, Nottingham, NG7 3JL.
4. The Defendant avers there was no intention to form a contract.
5. The Defendant admits to being the keeper and the driver of the vehicle at that time.
6. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to any relief.

1. INTRODUCTION
   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 the registered keeper. For the reasons set out in this Defense, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all.

1. RELEVANT FACTS
   
   1. On the date in question, the driver entered a car park off Holden Street, Nottingham, NG7 3JN.
   2. The on-site signage states "For use only whilst shopping on site". There is no offer for parking other than as a shopper on site. Any person parking but not shopping on site is a trespasser. It is not possible to contract to do something which is forbidden. No breach of contract has occurred in this case as the driver was not a shopper on site.
   3.Despite, a request by the Defendant asking the Claimant to provide evidence establishing that the Claimant has authority to manage and enforce the car park by way of issuing parking charge notices pursuant to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant has failed to provide the necessary evidence or explanation to establish the Claimant’s authority to enforce the Parking Charge.
   In the absence of the such evidence, 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.
   4.If (which the Defendant denies), the Defendant is found to be liable for the Parking Charge, the Defendant will say that the Parking Charge is not enforceable on the basis that there was not adequate notice of the Parking Charge given to the Defendant pursuant to Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. Paragraph 3(b) defines “adequate notice” as the display of one or more notices which are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.
   5.The signage at the car park was not sufficient to give the driver adequate notice of the parking charge because signs were too high (installed above 7 foot), and of too small a font (5-6mm size) to be read easily, and at night time were mainly unlit and at the entrance obscured by waste disposal units.
   6.The claim form claims £125, but gives no breakdown of how that figure is calculated
   7.Mention on the signs of additional costs or similar is not giving fair and reasonable notice and it is trite law that one cannot incorporate terms and conditions after the fact, without giving reasonable notice beforehand.
   8.Further and alternatively, if (which is denied) it is found that reasonable notice was given, the Defendant will say that the term was 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.

The Defendant will rely on the following points:

1. 1. Section 68 of the CRA 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:
      1. the font size of the term is extremely small making it illegible from a reasonable distance; the term ought to have been presented in a manner which was far more legible considering the amount of blank space available on the sign itself; and
      2. the term 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.

2. In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116. The S C found the parking charge (£85) 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).

3. In this claim unspecified costs 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))

4. As the Claimant is claiming from the Defendant as Keeper 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 £100.

5.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.

1. SIGNIFICANT POINTS OF DEFENSE

1. The PCN lists the alleged contravention as having taken place at Alfreton Road, but the entrance to the car park where my vehicle was located is situated on a different street—namely Holden Street.

This discrepancy is significant due to the incorrect address on the PCN may mislead or confuse the recipient as to the actual location of the alleged contravention. This undermines the clarity and enforceability of the notice.

Procedural Impropriety: The Traffic Management Act 2004 requires that a PCN provide accurate and clear details about the contravention, including the correct location. A material inaccuracy in the stated location could render the notice invalid.

Genuine Belief of Compliance: Was met given the actual entrance and layout of the car park, I had a genuine belief that I was parked legally and in accordance with all signage visible from the correct entrance on Holden Street. No signage at the actual entrance or within the car park indicated a contravention or restriction applicable to the location referenced in the PCN.

1. Critical signage at the entrance to the car park—specifically the sign stating a minimum 20-minute stay—was obstructed by a large bin at the time of entry. This had a direct impact on my understanding of the parking restrictions and my ability to comply with them. My defense is based on the following:

Obstruction of Key Information: The sign stating “Minimum 20 minutes stay” was not visible due to a large commercial bin placed directly in front of it. This obstruction made it impossible for me to read or be made aware of the specific parking requirements upon entering the car park.

Failure to Provide Adequate Notice: Under traffic and parking regulations, signage must be clear, visible, and legible to be enforceable. When signage is obscured—especially at the point of entry—it constitutes a failure by the operator or authority to provide adequate notice of the parking conditions.

Unintentional Non-Compliance: Had the sign been visible, I would have been fully aware of the minimum stay requirement and would have ensured compliance. The obstruction made it unreasonable to expect drivers to know or adhere to the restriction.

1. Ability to comply with the parking restrictions limited due to poor lighting conditions within the car park. At the time of the alleged contravention, only one out of five lights was operational, leaving the majority of the area poorly lit and creating an environment where signage and markings were not clearly visible.

Inadequate Visibility of Signage and Markings: Due to the insufficient lighting, I was unable to clearly see any signage or ground markings that might have indicated parking restrictions, time limits, or terms of use. This includes any indication of the “minimum stay” requirement or other conditions allegedly breached.

Reasonable Expectations for Compliance: It is the responsibility of the car park operator or local authority to ensure that the car park is maintained to a reasonable standard, including adequate lighting for visibility and safety. Expecting drivers to comply with poorly visible or unreadable restrictions is unreasonable and unfair.

Health and Safety Concerns: Poor lighting not only affects compliance with signage but also raises concerns for personal safety and security. This could influence a driver's decision to limit their stay, or potentially leave the area sooner than planned, particularly during evening hours.

Contributory Factor to Any Alleged Breach: If the alleged contravention relates to time limits or signage-related conditions, the poor lighting must be considered a material factor that prevented me from being fully aware of and complying with any such restrictions.

1. Specifically, tall crates used to store cardboard were placed directly in front of one or more signs, making the information on them unreadable from both the driver’s point of entry and within the car park:

This is relevant for the following reasons:

Obstruction of Statutory Signage: Signage that conveys parking terms, restrictions, or conditions must be clearly visible, legible, and unobstructed. The use of commercial crates for storage purposes in front of these signs amounts to a physical obstruction, preventing drivers from being properly informed.

Failure to Provide Fair Notice: The Traffic Management Act 2004 and associated regulations require that any terms or restrictions must be clearly communicated. Where signage is obscured—whether permanently or temporarily—the obligation to provide clear notice has not been met, and enforcement should not follow.

No Reasonable Opportunity to Comply: As the signage was physically blocked, I had no reasonable opportunity to understand the parking terms or avoid the alleged contravention. Enforcement based on hidden or obscured signage is not consistent with principles of fairness or due process.

Responsibility for Maintenance and Accessibility: It is the duty of the car park operator or local authority to ensure signage is not only installed but also maintained in an accessible and visible state. Allowing commercial storage to block critical signage represents a failure in this duty.

1. The sign in question features text in a font size of approximately 6mm and is installed at a height of approximately 7 feet, making it extremely difficult—if not impossible—for a driver to read and understand its contents before entering into any alleged contract.

This undermines the enforceability of the notice for the following reasons:

Failure to Form a Binding Contract: In order for a contract to be legally binding—particularly one that imposes a penalty or charge—there must be clear, unambiguous terms communicated to the party before agreement. A sign with text that is effectively illegible due to small font size and high placement fails to meet this requirement.

Breach of Signage Standards: The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, as well as relevant consumer law, stipulates that signage must be clear, prominent, and legible from a driver’s viewpoint. A font size of 6mm placed 7 feet in the air falls well below these standards and cannot reasonably be expected to communicate terms in a meaningful way.

Lack of Informed Consent: No valid agreement can be formed if one party (in this case, the driver) is unable to read or understand the terms being presented. As such, no contract can be said to have been knowingly entered into, and therefore no charge can be enforced under contract law.

Unfair Terms Under Consumer Protection Law: Terms that are not brought clearly to the attention of a consumer may be deemed unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Given the poor visibility of the signage, any term relied upon to issue this PCN is arguably unfair and therefore unenforceable.

1. Signage purporting to establish a contractual agreement contains ambiguous and grammatically incorrect wording, which renders the terms unclear and therefore unenforceable.

Specifically, the sign states that parking is only permitted "for use only whilst shopping on site’’ without clearly identifying which shop or shops the condition refers to. This introduces substantial ambiguity into the contractual terms.

This is relevant for the following reasons:

Unclear or Vague Contractual Language: For any contract to be enforceable—especially one that imposes a financial penalty—the terms must be clearly and precisely expressed. The wording used on the sign is syntactically incorrect and fails to specify exactly who the restriction applies to. Without a clearly defined beneficiary (e.g. a named shop or business), the condition is too vague to enforce.
Failure to Communicate Material Terms: Contract law requires that material terms—including who is permitted to park and under what circumstances—be communicated in an intelligible and unambiguous manner. The sign in question fails this test due to its improper construction.

Interpretation in Favour of the Consumer: Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, if a contractual term is open to more than one interpretation, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer (i.e. the driver) must prevail. In this case, the vagueness of the phrase "only shoppers at [unclear entity]" means that a driver could reasonably believe they were in compliance, particularly if visiting any shop within or near the car park.

No Certainty of Obligation: For a contract to be enforceable, there must be certainty of obligation—the driver must know precisely what is required to avoid a penalty. The failure to identify which shop the restriction refers to results in a lack of clarity that invalidates any alleged contractual obligation.

1. I also submit that the enforcement process related to Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) [Insert PCN Number] has not complied with the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, as outlined under the Civil Procedure Rules.

In particular, Paragraph 6, Section (c) of the Practice Direction requires that:

"Before proceedings are commenced, the parties should disclose key documents relevant to the issues in dispute."

This step was not followed. I have not been provided with any of the following documents or evidence that are material to the alleged contravention and essential to understanding or contesting the charge:

• Full and unedited photographic or video evidence of the alleged breach (the provided photograph is extremely dark and contrasted, but this may also be due to lack of working lights in car park)
• Evidence of signage as it appeared on the date in question; Maintenance records or logs confirming that lighting and signage were in working order;
• Copies of any contractual agreements between the landowner and the private parking company;

This failure to provide key documents prior to the initiation of proceedings undermines the principle of fair and open dispute resolution, and directly contravenes the Pre-Action Protocols which aim to avoid unnecessary litigation by ensuring that all relevant information is exchanged beforehand.

• Denial of Opportunity to Resolve the Dispute Fairly: Without access to the relevant documents, I have been denied a fair opportunity to assess the merits of the claim and to respond appropriately before court action was threatened or initiated.
• Procedural Irregularity: Non-compliance with the Pre-Action Protocols constitutes a procedural irregularity that the court may consider when deciding costs or whether the claim has been brought prematurely or unreasonably.
• Request for Strike-Out or Stay: In the event that proceedings are issued without compliance with the Practice Direction, I reserve the right to request that the claim be struck out or stayed until such time as the claimant complies with its obligations.

1. CONCLUSION
2. By reason of the Defendant’s non-compliance with the POFA requirements as set out in this Defence, the Claimant is not entitled to pursue the Defendant.
3. I, X, believe that the facts stated in this form are true.

Signed: Date:

[des8]

Sorry, but that is not going to be accepted as a Witness Statement (WS).
Suggest you read the guide in the SHORTCUTS panel on right of this page
You might also find some useful pointers in this article: https://hallellis.co.uk/preparing-witness-statements/

As there is no hurry (assume you haven't yet received court instructions) it is worth attempting a rewrite yourself, before we give further advice

[ognuttah]

Sorry, but that is not going to be accepted as a Witness Statement (WS).
Suggest you read the guide in the SHORTCUTS panel on right of this page
You might also find some useful pointers in this article: https://hallellis.co.uk/preparing-witness-statements/

As there is no hurry (assume you haven't yet received court instructions) it is worth attempting a rewrite yourself, before we give further advice

Hi Des,

Hope you're well and having a splendid day.

I'm just sat here at 2AM writing my witness statement, should have heeded your advise and prepared earlier but here I am... haha. Had a letter on Monday arrive to let me know it's due by 22nd September so I've left it a bit late.

Thanks for sharing that link, I'm preparing a suitable WS as we speak..

I was just reviewing the reply to defense and thought it may be useful to share with you, do you see any holes in this reply that I may use in my defense/WS?

Thanks in advance.

[des8]

I see nothing in their response which you could counter in your witness statement.
Your WS is your factual account of what occurred.
You challenge their claim and response to your defence in court. e.g. they are claiming "breach of contract" but you are stating you did not enter into a contract because:
i) the signs were forbidding in nature
ii) the signs were not sufficiently legible (height, font size, poor lighting
III) shop not identified
etc etc

[ognuttah]

I see nothing in their response which you could counter in your witness statement.
Your WS is your factual account of what occurred.
You challenge their claim and response to your defence in court. e.g. they are claiming "breach of contract" but you are stating you did not enter into a contract because:
i) the signs were forbidding in nature
ii) the signs were not sufficiently legible (height, font size, poor lighting
III) shop not identified
etc etc

Thanks for the rapid response as always Des,

Right, I have drafted a WS, see below;

I, X, of XXX, will say as follows:

Preliminaries

1. Unless I indicate otherwise, all facts which I state below:-
   1. are within my personal knowledge; or
   2. have been told to me by a person whom I name and whom I believe; and
   3. have been taken from my records.

1. I, X, am the Defendant in Claim Number XXX.

This Witness Statement

1. I make this witness statement for the trial hearing that is due to take place on the 19^th November 2025 at County Court at Nottingham.
2. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked SP1 to which I will refer.
3. The exhibits hereto are marked as follows: (TO BE SORTED)
   1. “RR03”:
   2. “RR04”:
   3. “RR05”:

1. I refer to these exhibits below in the format “[exhibit reference] / [page number]”. Accordingly, “RR02 / 5” is a reference to page 5 of Exhibit RR02.

Summary of Background Facts

...xxx...

Parties

1. I, X, am a resident of XXX. I design thermal heat exchangers at X.
2. I, X, have held my driving license for over 10 years,

Background

1. I confirm that I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question, registration XXX XXX, on 18^th October 2024 and thereafter date.
2. I confirm that my vehicle was parked in a bay belonging to Tesco. The vehicle was parked there by way to access Tesco and surrounding shops.
3. Entry into the car park requires turning off of Afreton Avenue, taking the first left onto Holden Street, and then a narrow left turn into the car park for Tesco.
4. Holden Street is a narrow street, and upon turning into the car park, my attention was drawn to a large blue bin that was parked to the right of the entrance. This took away attention from the ’20 mins min stay’ sign posted directly above it.
5. Entry into and driving in the car park requires careful attention as it is night time and the car park is unlit.
6. The vehicle was left for approximately an hour, the purpose of visit was to purchase tobacco from Tesco and then eat some food next door.
7. Two weeks later, I received a letter through to post which claimed to be a PCN. The letter emphasized the payment terms but did not clarify which contract had been breached. However, the letter stated I had parked at ‘131 Alfreton Road’ for a period of 1 hour and 21 minutes. After examining the dark unclear pictures and ascertaining that I had never parked on Alfreton Road lead me to dismiss the letter as attempted scam.
8. On receipt of the County Court Claim, I visited 131 Alfreton Road on 12th December 2024 to investigate further. Upon driving past Tesco, I realized this was the car park in question. Upon revisiting the car park, I firmly believe the management company are not protecting the parking rights of this car park with legitimate interest by the reasons stated below. (i'm not sure I've worded this properly, think it can be worded better?)
9. Out of the 5 signs, only 1 has working lights(one at the exit), 1 light only has 1 of 2 lights working and the remaining 3 signs had lights that were not operative at all.
10. The signage at the car park was not sufficient to give the driver adequate notice of the parking charge because signs were too high (installed above 7 foot), and of too small a font (5-6mm size) to be read easily, and at night time were mainly unlit.
11. Other signage is blocked by large, tall, multiple crates of stacked cardboard.
12. The claim form claims £125, but gives no breakdown of how that figure is calculated.
13. Mention on the signs of additional costs or similar is not giving fair and reasonable notice and it is trite law that one cannot incorporate terms and conditions after the fact, without giving reasonable notice beforehand.
14. The on-site signage states "For use only whilst shopping on site". There is no offer for parking other than as a shopper on site. Any person parking but not shopping on site is a trespasser. It is not possible to contract to do something which is forbidden. No breach of contract has occurred in this case as the driver was not a shopper on site.
15. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (Exhibit D) as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is my position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.
16. If (which the Defendant denies), the Defendant is found to be liable for the Parking Charge, the Defendant will say that the Parking Charge is not enforceable on the basis that there was not adequate notice of the Parking Charge given to the Defendant pursuant to Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. Paragraph 3(b) defines “adequate notice” as the display of one or more notices which are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.
17. Further and alternatively, if (which is denied) it is found that reasonable notice was given, the Defendant will say that the term was 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.
18. Despite, a request by the Defendant asking the Claimant to provide evidence establishing that the Claimant has authority to manage and enforce the car park by way of issuing parking charge notices pursuant to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant has failed to provide the necessary evidence or explanation to establish the Claimant’s authority to enforce the Parking Charge.
    In the absence of the such evidence, 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.

Conclusions

1. [xxx]

Sorry, it's my first time ever preparing something like this, please let me know if this is more appropriate. I also appreciate it still may not be a solid defense, so any criticism is most welcome.

Thanks in advance.

kind regards,

[des8]

Thanks for the rapid response as always Des,

Right, I have drafted a WS, see below;

I, X, of XXX, will say as follows:

Preliminaries

1. Unless I indicate otherwise, all facts which I state below:-
   1. are within my personal knowledge; or
   2. have been told to me by a person whom I name and whom I believe; and
   3. have been taken from my records.

1. I, X, am the Defendant in Claim Number XXX.

This Witness Statement

1. I make this witness statement for the trial hearing that is due to take place on the 19^th November 2025 at County Court at Nottingham.
2. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked SP1 to which I will refer.
3. The exhibits hereto are marked as follows: (TO BE SORTED)
   1. “RR03”:
   2. “RR04”:
   3. “RR05”:

1. I refer to these exhibits below in the format “[exhibit reference] / [page number]”. Accordingly, “RR02 / 5” is a reference to page 5 of Exhibit RR02.

Summary of Background Facts

...xxx...

Parties

1. I, X, am a resident of XXX. I design thermal heat exchangers at X.
2. I, X, have held my driving license for over 10 years,

Background

1. I confirm that I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question, registration XXX XXX, on 18^th October 2024 and thereafter date.
2. I confirm that my vehicle was parked in a bay belonging to Tesco. The vehicle was parked there by way to access Tesco and surrounding shops.
3. Entry into the car park requires turning off of Afreton Avenue, taking the first left onto Holden Street, and then a narrow left turn into the car park for Tesco.
4. Holden Street is a narrow street, and upon turning into the car park, my attention was drawn to a large blue bin that was parked to the right of the entrance. This took away attention from the ’20 mins min stay’ sign posted directly above it.
5. Entry into and driving in the car park requires careful attention as it is night time and the car park is unlit.
6. The vehicle was left for approximately an hour, the purpose of visit was to purchase tobacco from Tesco and then eat some food next door.
7. Two weeks later, I received a letter through to post which claimed to be a PCN. The letter emphasized the payment terms but did not clarify which contract had been breached. However, the letter stated I had parked at ‘131 Alfreton Road’ for a period of 1 hour and 21 minutes. After examining the dark unclear pictures and ascertaining that I had never parked on Alfreton Road lead me to dismiss the letter as attempted scam.
8. On receipt of the County Court Claim, I visited 131 Alfreton Road on 12th December 2024 to investigate further. Upon driving past Tesco, I realized this was the car park in question. Upon revisiting the car park, I firmly believe the management company are not protecting the parking rights of this car park with legitimate interest by the reasons stated below. (i'm not sure I've worded this properly, think it can be worded better?)
9. The signage at the car park was not sufficient to give the driver adequate notice of the parking charge because signs were too high (installed above 7 foot), and of too small a font (5-6mm size) to be read easily, and at night time were mainly unlit.
10. Other signage is blocked by large, tall, multiple crates of stacked cardboard.
11. The claim form claims £125, but gives no breakdown of how that figure is calculated.
12. Mention on the signs of additional costs or similar is not giving fair and reasonable notice and it is trite law that one cannot incorporate terms and conditions after the fact, without giving reasonable notice beforehand.
13. The on-site signage states "For use only whilst shopping on site". There is no offer for parking other than as a shopper on site. Any person parking but not shopping on site is a trespasser. It is not possible to contract to do something which is forbidden. No breach of contract has occurred in this case as the driver was not a shopper on site.
14. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (Exhibit D) as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is my position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.
15. If (which the Defendant denies), the Defendant is found to be liable for the Parking Charge, the Defendant will say that the Parking Charge is not enforceable on the basis that there was not adequate notice of the Parking Charge given to the Defendant pursuant to Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. Paragraph 3(b) defines “adequate notice” as the display of one or more notices which are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.
16. Further and alternatively, if (which is denied) it is found that reasonable notice was given, the Defendant will say that the term was 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.
17. Despite, a request by the Defendant asking the Claimant to provide evidence establishing that the Claimant has authority to manage and enforce the car park by way of issuing parking charge notices pursuant to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant has failed to provide the necessary evidence or explanation to establish the Claimant’s authority to enforce the Parking Charge.
    In the absence of the such evidence, 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.

Conclusions

1. [xxx]

Sorry, it's my first time ever preparing something like this, please let me know if this is more appropriate. I also appreciate it still may not be a solid defense, so any criticism is most welcome.

Thanks in advance.

kind regards,

This is not your defence, but a witness statement describing what happened from your viewpoint.
The paragraphs need to be numbered so I would suggest from "back ground" onwards something more more along the lines:

12)On 18th October 2024 at approximately 9.00pm I entered an unlit car park off Holden Street
13) I recall seeing a large blue bin that was parked to the right of the entrance. (exhibit ....)
14) this bin partially blocked the narrow entrance to the car park and no signs were noticed
!5)]Two weeks later, I received a letter through to post which claimed to be a PCN.. The letter stated I had parked at ‘131 Alfreton Road’ for a period of 1 hour and 21 minutes. After examining the dark unclear pictures and ascertaining that I had never parked on Alfreton Road lead me to dismiss the letter as attempted scam.
!6)]On receipt of the County Court Claim on dd/mm, I visited 131 Alfreton Road on 12th December 2024 to investigate further. Upon driving past Tesco, I realized this was the car park in question.
17) I noted that of the 5 signs, only 1 has working lights(one at the exit), 1 light only has 1 of 2 lights working and the remaining 3 signs had lights that were not operative at all.
18) the signs were installed over 7 foot above the ground and the font size 5-6mm (exhibits .......)

and so on

What you do is state facts, not interpret them
You do not repeat your defence in your witness statement
If in your defence you said the driver was not a shopper on site, you need to be very careful about saying you went shopping in Tescos if it is their car park. There is no need
to say why you were in the car park. If the matter comes up during the trial you might have to explain that you were only a customer of the site shop for a moment and so leaving to eat elsewhere you were by remaining there trespassing (although all this was inadvertent as you had not seen the signs )

[ognuttah]

This is not your defence, but a witness statement describing what happened from your viewpoint.
The paragraphs need to be numbered so I would suggest from "back ground" onwards something more more along the lines:

12)On 18th October 2024 at approximately 9.00pm I entered an unlit car park off Holden Street
13) I recall seeing a large blue bin that was parked to the right of the entrance. (exhibit ....)
14) this bin partially blocked the narrow entrance to the car park and no signs were noticed
!5)]Two weeks later, I received a letter through to post which claimed to be a PCN.. The letter stated I had parked at ‘131 Alfreton Road’ for a period of 1 hour and 21 minutes. After examining the dark unclear pictures and ascertaining that I had never parked on Alfreton Road lead me to dismiss the letter as attempted scam.
!6)]On receipt of the County Court Claim on dd/mm, I visited 131 Alfreton Road on 12th December 2024 to investigate further. Upon driving past Tesco, I realized this was the car park in question.
17) I noted that of the 5 signs, only 1 has working lights(one at the exit), 1 light only has 1 of 2 lights working and the remaining 3 signs had lights that were not operative at all.
18) the signs were installed over 7 foot above the ground and the font size 5-6mm (exhibits .......)

and so on

What you do is state facts, not interpret them
You do not repeat your defence in your witness statement
If in your defence you said the driver was not a shopper on site, you need to be very careful about saying you went shopping in Tescos if it is their car park. There is no need
to say why you were in the car park. If the matter comes up during the trial you might have to explain that you were only a customer of the site shop for a moment and so leaving to eat elsewhere you were by remaining there trespassing (although all this was inadvertent as you had not seen the signs )

Hi Des,

Thanks so much for the feedback, I'm being too defensive in that case. I've adjusted as advised, see below.

I, X, of XXX, will say as follows:

Preliminaries

1. Unless I indicate otherwise, all facts which I state below:-
   1. are within my personal knowledge; or
   2. have been told to me by a person whom I name and whom I believe; and
   3. have been taken from my records.

1. I, X, am the Defendant in Claim Number XXX.

This Witness Statement

1. I make this witness statement for the trial hearing that is due to take place on the 19^th November 2025 at County Court at Nottingham.
2. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents with 5 exhibits that I will reference respectively.
3. The exhibits hereto are marked as follows:
   1. Exhibit 1 – Photo of entrance, bin at entrance.
   2. Exhibit 2 – Photo at sign 1 with lights working
   3. Exhibit 3 – Photo at sign 2 with one light working.
   4. Exhibit 4 – Photo of sign 3 with no lights working.
   5. Exhibit 5 – Photo of sign 4 with no lights working.
   6. Exhibit 6 – Photo of sign 5 with no lights working.
   7. Exhibit 7- Photo of sign installation height measurement
   8. Exhibit 7 – Photo of font size measurement.

Parties

1. I, X, am a home owner of XXX. I design X at X of XXX.

Background

1. I confirm that I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question, registration XXX, on 18^th October 2024 and thereafter date.
2. I confirm that my vehicle was parked in a bay belonging to Tesco. The vehicle was parked there by way to access Tesco and surrounding shops.
3. On 18th October 2024 at approximately 9.00pm I entered an unlit car park off Holden Street
4. I recall seeing a large blue bin that was parked to the right of the entrance. (exhibit 1)
5. This bin partially blocked the narrow entrance to the car park and no signs were noticed.
6. Two weeks later, I received a letter through to post which claimed to be a PCN. The letter stated I had parked at “131 Alfreton Road” for a period of 1 hour and 21 minutes. After examining the dark unclear pictures and ascertaining that I had never parked on Alfreton Road lead me to dismiss the letter as attempted scam.
7. On receipt of the County Court Claim on 11/12/2024, I visited 131 Alfreton Road on 12th December 2024 to investigate further. Upon driving past Tesco, I realized this was the car park in question.
8. I noted that of the 5 signs, only 1 has working lights(one at the exit), 1 light only has 1 of 2 lights working and the remaining 3 signs had lights that were not operative at all. (exhibits, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
9. the signs were installed over 7 foot above the ground and the font size 5-6mm (exhibit 7)
10. Signage within the car park had been blocked by large crates of stacked cardboard.

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.






SIGNED

……………………………………… 18 September 2025
xxx
The Defendant

[ognuttah]

Hi Des,

Just one more thing to note, the first exhibit, they had moved the bin when I had gone back to take pictures, however I had taken that screenshot from google maps which shows how they often place their bin in front of the 20 min max stay sign.... Should i state that this is infact a screenshot from google maps or may I leave it titled as 'picture of entrance'..

thanks in advance.

[des8]

I would just leave it as is. Obviously if asked you will have to say it is a google photo, but assert it is how it was positioned on the night of the event.

Statement of truth wording:
‘I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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.’

[ognuttah]

I would just leave it as is. Obviously if asked you will have to say it is a google photo, but assert it is how it was positioned on the night of the event.

Statement of truth wording:
‘I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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.’

Thanks so much Des, I've adjusted statement of truth. Will get it all printed, signed off and sent. Am not sure, if I read somewhere, that I need to also send a copy to the claimant?

I'd have felt so lost and stranded without you're help mate, can't thank you enough !