UKPCL Witness

IN THE CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE 

CLAIM NUMBER:

BETWEEN:-

UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED 

Claimant

And 

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

Defendant

--------------------------------

REPLY TO DEFENCE

--------------------------------

1. Preliminary 

1.1 The Parking Charge Notice (herewith referred to as the "PCN") with reference number 1299130731545 was issued after the vehicle SD12XHK breached the terms and conditions, as per the signage at Parkhouse Court, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9QZ on 14/03/2023. The contravention of 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible' resulted in the issuing of the PCN on the vehicles windscreen. 

1.2 The Defendant appealed the PCN on 15/03/2023. The Claimant responded to the appeal on 17/04/2023 asking for evidence of a valid disabled badge. This request was not responded to by the Defendant and a final letter was sent to the Defendant on 09/05/2023. 

2. Responding to points of the Defence 

2.1 The Defendant denies that they are indebted to the Claimant 

2.1.1 The signage states "Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 Parking Charge (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) being issued to the vehicle's driver". 

2.1.2 After entering the car park, the Driver entered into a contract with the Claimant as per the signage. Upon which they agreed the terms and conditions and to pay in the case of breaching them. 

2.1.3 The signage also states "In the event that a Parking Charge remains unpaid, UK Parking Control Ltd may contact the DVLA and request the Registered Keeper's details" 

2.1.4 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states that if after 29 days, the Parking Charge has not been paid in full, and the operator does not know both the name and current address of the driver, that they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from the Registered Keeper. 

2.1.5 Thus the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant and this allegation is denied. 

2.2 The Defendant requests the contract between the Claimant and the landowner 

2.2.1 The Contract between the Claimant and landowner is commercially sensitive and will not be provided at this time. 

2.2.2 The contract will be submitted within the relevant time frame to the court. 

2.3 The Defendant wishes to know the consideration provided 

2.3.1 No consideration period is given to the contravention of 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible'.

2.3.2 At the point of the PCN issuance, the vehicle had parked and thus the consideration period had expired. 

2.4 The Defendant states the PCN to be unfair and breaching the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 

2.4.1 Further to the Judgments of HHJ Moloney QC and the Court of Appeal in Parking v Beavis, the Supreme Court have subsequently also found that the contract formed between the motorist and the Claimant does not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. In reaching this decision, the Court considered the case of Aziz v Caixa d'Estalvis de catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa (Case C-415/11) [2013J 3 CMLR 89, which requires consideration of a two stage process: 

2.4.1.1 Is there a "significant imbalance" in light of the consumer's position under national law? 

2.4.1.2 If so, has the term been imposed "contrary to the requirement of good faith" taking into account all the circumstances? 

2.4.2 The Supreme Court conclude that the term was not unfair and at paragraph 104, Lord Sumption and Lord Neuberger opine that, "the same considerations which show that the £85 charge is not a penalty, demonstrate that it is not unfair for the purpose of the Regulations". They note that, "...although it arguably falls within the illustrative description of potentially unfair terms at paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, it is not within the basic test for unfairness in regulations 5(1) and 6(1)." 

2.4.3 In reaching this decision, the Justices pose the question, "Could ParkingEye, "dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, ... reasonably assume tnat the consumer would have agreed to such a term individual contract negotiations"?" They note that the test is an objective one and they consider, "...not whether Mr Beavis himself would in fact have agreed to the term imposing the £85 charge in a negotiation, but whether a reasonable motorist in his position would have done so." Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption conclude that, "a reasonable motorist would have agreed." 

2.4.4 In support, Lord Mance also concludes that, "A customer in Mr Beavis's position, if asked about the terms on which he would wish to park, would no doubt have been very satisfied with a proposal of two hours free parking, but would very probably have asked for some form of gradated payment in the event of overstaying. Confronted with the other interests involved and the considerations making that unacceptable from BAPF's and ParkingEye's viewpoint, l am not at all confident that he or she would have refused to accept the risk of having to pay £85 (reducible on prompt payment) in the event of overstaying." 

2.4.5 It was further noted that any imbalance in the parties' rights did not arise 'contrary to the requirements of good faith' and that this was because ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in inducing Mr Beavis not to overstay in order to efficiently manage the car park for the benefit of the generality of users. The Justices also consider the amount of the Charge in the context of the Regulations and at paragraph 106 they note that, "...a provision requiring the payment upon default of a sum exceeding the damage caused, may be justified if it serves to encourage compliance." They conclude, at paragraph 107, that there is "...no reason to regard the amount of the charge as any higher than was necessary to achieve that objective." 

2.4.6 Thus, the Claimant rejects any allegation that the PCN is unfair. 

2.5 The Defendant disputes the details of the PCN 

2.5.1 The Claimant adheres that the details of the PCN are correct. 

2.5.2 Thus, the Claimant denies this allegation. 

2.6 The Defendant avers that the Claimant relies on hearsay evidence including Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras 

2.6.1 The Claimant wishes to reiterate that the PCN was not issued by ANPR cameras, by by the Claimant's parking operative.

2.6.2 The parking operative capture multiple timestamped photographic evidence of the vehicle parked in breach of a term of parking. 

2.7 The Defendant states the Claimant failed to provide a copy of the written contract under Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) abd Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A) 

2.7.1 As stated in the Claimant's reply to 2.2, the contract is commercially sensitive and will be submitted at the appropriate time. 

2.8 The Defendant questions the Claimant's authority to manage the site 

2.8.1 The Claimant's authorisation to bring legal action is expressly provided in the contract held with the landholder. 

2.8.2 The Claimant is authorised to install signage setting out the terms and conditions of parking, issue PCNs for a breach of these terms and conditions, and to recover and retain these charges. 2.8.3 Please note that the Claimant is presented as the contracting party on the signage throughout the car park. 

2.9 The Defendant questions the signage on site 

2.9.1 The Claimant can confirm that signage prominently displayed thought-out the car park conforms to British Parking Association's Code of Practice and are of a similar height to other road signs which are legible from any standard motor vehicle. 

2.9.2 The Claimant asserts that if a motorist is of adequate sight to qualify to drive a motor vehicle then they should be able to read the essential terms and conditions of the signage whilst driving. 

2.9.3 All non-essential text is in a smaller font at the bottom of the sign, which can be read once the motorist has parked. 

2.9.4 This notwithstanding, the purpose of the entrance sign is to simply alert the motorist to the fact that there are terms and conditions for parking on this site, in accordance with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice. 

2.9.5 Thus this allegation is denied. 

2.10 The Defendant states the Claimant was a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) 

2.10.1. The Claimant is wishes to correct that they are not a member of the IPC. 

2.10.2 The Claimant clarifies that they are a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and uphold their Code of Practice. 

2.11 The Defendant denies a contract with the Claimant 

2.11.1 The Claimant's PCNs are issued on the basis of a contract with the motorist. Signage at each site sets out the terms and conditions under which a motorist is authorised to park, be that by payment of the appropriate paid parking tariff or by parking within a limited stay period or similar, and that a PCN will be payable if the same are not met. 

2.11.2 The Claimant considers that it is trite law that a contract can be formed in this way. 

2.11.3 The Claimant ensures that signage is ample, clear and visible, so that it complies with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. 

2.11.4 The Claimant wishes to ensure that the motorist is bound when they enter and remain at a site, so that all users of the site are obliged to comply with the terms 

2.11.5 Thus the claim is denied. 

2.12 The Defendant denies there was an agreement to pay

2.12.1 After entering the car park, the driver entered into a contract with the Claimant as per the signage. Upon which they agreed the terms and conditions and to pay in the case of breaching them. 

2.12.2 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states that if after 29 days, the Parking Charge has not been paid in full, and the operator does not know both the name and current address of the driver, that they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from the Registered Keeper. 

2.12.3 Thus, the Claimant denies that the Defendant did not agree to pay. 

2.13 The Defendant denies they are liable

2.13.1 The amount of the Parking Charge is justified. 

2.13.2 This is supported by the British Parking Association Code of Practice at paragraph 19.5. 

2.13.3 The Defendant is liable for this PCN, as per contract law, due to the breach of contract, specified by signage on site. 

2.13.4 Therefore, the Claimant denies that the Defendant is not liable. 

2.14 The Defendant questions if they are being pursued as the keeper or driver of the vehicle 

2.14.1 As per the Claim Form, the Defendant is being pursued as the keeper of the vehicle. 

2.14.2 The Claimant has this right as per the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to pursue the registered keeper for the unpaid PCN. 

2.14.3 The Claimant denies that this is unclear. 

2.15 The Defendant states the Claimant has no evidence that the Defendant was the driver 

2.15.1 The Defendant submitted an appeal on 15/03/2023, identifying themselves are the driver of the vehicle. 

2.15.2 Thus, this allegation is denied. 

2.16 The Defendant disputes that the `PPC(s) are outstanding' and requests copies of previous correspondence 

2.16.1 The Claimant wishes to clarify that a PCN was issued. 

2.16.2 The Cliamant's records reflect that no payment was made in relation to this PCN, and thus remains outstanding. 

2.16.3 The Claimant attaches copies of previous correspondence for the Defendant's records. 

2.17 The Defendant disputes the amount claimed

2.17.1 The Claimant denies that any of the amount claimed is invalid. 

2.17.2 The £170.00 claim break down is as follows:

a. PCN at £100 as per the contract, the terms and conditions of which were stated on our signage and in line with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice. b. Debt recovery fee of £70 as per site signage, and as stipulated within all the notices that had been issued to the Defendant 

2.17.3 The additional costs and court fees of £35 and solicitor fees on entering the claim of £50 were added as per the Particulars of Claim, creating a total of £255.00. 

2.18 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's ability to claim interest 

2.18.1 The Claimant claims interest as stated in the claim form. 

2.18.2 The Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984. 

2.18.3 The Claimant denies any allegation that they are unable to claim interest. 

2.19 The Defendant states they were not provided a grace period 

2.19.1 The contravention of 'Disable Badge Expiry Not Visible' does not warrant a grace period. 

2.19.2 Thus, no grace period was provided for this PCN.

3. Conclusion 

3.1 The Claimant believes that a defence has not been made by the Defendant. 

3.2 The Claimant asserts that this defence is a standard and generic template distributed on online forums to Defendants in order to avoid paying PCNs. 

3.3 This PCN was not appealed and therefore the Claimant has had no previous correspondence from the Defendant on this matter. 

3.4 The purpose of the Small Claims court is to mitigate costs wherever possible. It is not appropriate for a Defendant to be at liberty to submit further supplementary defences unchecked, which must then be responded to by the Claimant. 

3.5 For this reason, if a Defendant wishes to amend a defence, and add further defence points, there is a proper procedure for doing so. 

3.6 The Claimant has responded to this original defence, and both sides will now be required to submit a witness statement and documents to be relied on by a court appointed date. Again, this should not contain further defence points, and should be a statement of the facts of the case. However, in these cases, it is the Claimant's experience that Defendants will often submit large further defences throughout the process (which require a response) and will often submit a large further defence in place of a witness statement. These all need to be responded to by the Claimant. 

3.7 In order for this process to run smoothly, both Defendant and Claimant should ensure that the defences to the claim and the replies are contained in as few documents as possible, and that amendments to these documents are sanctioned by the court. Both parties should also ensure that any defences and replies are filed and served prior to the filing and serving of witness statements, and that further defences or documents are not filed at or after this time. 

3.8 The Claimant would remind the Defendant that if they wish to amend their defence, they should submit an N244 Form, and pay the relevant fee. Once permission to amend the defence has been granted, this new defence should be submitted both to the Claimant and the court. The Claimant will then reply to this amended defence. The Claimant would request that any amendments to the defence are made in good time, so as to allow the Claimant to respond fully prior to the filing and serving of witness statements and documents, as further defence points should not be raised at this stage. 

3.9 The Claimant will not respond to or acknowledge any further defence received unless the Defendant has first had this approved by the court. This is to ensure that costs are mitigated and that court time is not wasted on dealing with numerous defence documents and replies.

CPR 17.1 states, "(1) A party may amend his statement of case at any time before it has been served on any other party. (2) If his statement of case has been served, a party may amend it only —(a) with the written consent of all the other parties; or (b) with the permission of the court." CPR 15.9 states, "No statement of case after a reply to be filed without court's permission. A party may not file or serve any statement of case after a reply without the permission of the court." 

3.10 The Claimant would like to state that the Defendant was made aware of the Civil Procedure Rules in the Letter Before Claim sent prior to legal action being taken. 

3.11 WHEREFORE, the Claimant prays that judgement be entered, against the Defendant as prayed for within the Particulars of Claim, with costs. The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Reply to Defence are true. The Claimant understands that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or cases to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Dated: 06/12/2023 

Signed: Angelika Brzozowska 

Solicitor at UK Parking Control Limited

IN THE CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE 

CLAIM NUMBER:

BETWEEN:-

UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED 

Claimant

And 

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

Defendant

--------------------------------------------------------

DEFENDANT'S WITNESS STATEMENT

---------------------------------------------------------

1. Preliminary

1.1 I, [DEFENDANT'S NAME], the Defendant in this matter, hereby submit my Witness Statement in response to the allegations made by UK Parking Control Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant").

1.2 The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) with reference number 1299130731545 was issued on 14/03/2023, alleging a breach of terms and conditions at Parkhouse Court, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9QZ. The contravention of 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible' is contested.

1.3 The Defendant appealed the PCN on 15/03/2023. The Claimant's response, dated 17/04/2023, requested evidence of a valid disabled badge. Due to a disability affecting my memory and mobility, I inadvertently missed the 14-day deadline for providing proof.

2. Responding to points of the Claimant's Reply to Defence

2.1 The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant

2.1.1 The signage specifies a potential charge for non-compliance, but entering into a contract requires mutual agreement on terms, which I dispute.

I will rely on the recent judgment in the High Court:

LEIGHTON vs BRISTOW & SUTOR 20th September 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING’S BENCH DIVISION SWANSEA DISTRICT REGISTRY Case Ref. J90SA00

Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE HARRISON (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

"40. Applying first principles of contract, it cannot, in my judgment, be said that the defendants accepted the terms as set out in that document. There was no meeting of the minds of the claimant and the defendants on this issue, and it simply cannot be inferred that the defendants accepted that in attending the property, for example, they accepted a contractual liability to the claimant in the way now alleged. The defendants were not seeking to attend the property pursuant to the alleged contractual term;"

I contend that there was no meeting of the minds of the Defendant and the Claimant and therefore no contract was formed.

2.1.2 The Defendant contests the existence of a valid contract, as I did not willingly agree to the terms stated by the Claimant.

2.1.3 The Claimant's threat to contact the DVLA does not establish a valid claim against me.

2.1.4 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not justify an automatic transfer of liability to the Registered Keeper without due process.

2.1.5 The Defendant denies any indebtedness, challenging the Claimant's interpretation of the law.

2.2 The Defendant requests the contract between the Claimant and the landowner

2.2.1 The refusal to provide the contract is noted, and I reserve the right to contest its validity when disclosed.

2.2.2 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's statement that the contract between the Claimant and the landowner will be submitted within the relevant time frame to the court.

However, the Defendant emphasizes the importance of timely disclosure and requests that the Claimant adheres to the court's procedures and deadlines for the submission of evidence. Failure to provide the contract within the stipulated time frame may impede the Defendant's ability to prepare an adequate response and participate fully in the proceedings.

The Defendant reserves the right to scrutinize the contract once submitted and may challenge its validity or relevance to the specific circumstances of this case. It is essential for the court and all involved parties to have access to all relevant documents in a timely manner to ensure a fair and transparent legal process.

2.3 The Defendant questions the consideration provided

2.3.1 The lack of consideration for the alleged contravention is disputed, and the Claimant's failure to address this in the signage is noted.

2.3.2 The Defendant contests the assertion made by the Claimant that the consideration period had expired at the point of PCN issuance, emphasizing that a fair and reasonable consideration period is essential for the validity of any contractual arrangement.

The Defendant argues that the circumstances leading to the PCN issuance, specifically the alleged 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible' contravention, necessitate a nuanced evaluation. As a blue badge holder with a legitimate reason to use disabled parking, the Defendant was actively engaged in the process of determining whether payment or display of a ticket was required, a reasonable and justifiable action.

The Defendant maintains that the Claimant's failure to acknowledge the unique considerations for blue badge holders, particularly the brief time required to assess signage and ensure compliance, raises questions about the fairness and reasonableness of the PCN issuance. It is the Defendant's position that the consideration period, in this case, should be extended to accommodate the circumstances faced by individuals with disabilities, ensuring a fair and equitable contractual relationship.

The Defendant urges the court to consider the specific circumstances surrounding the PCN issuance and argues that the Claimant's rigid interpretation of the consideration period fails to account for the unique challenges faced by blue badge holders, such as the Defendant.

2.4 The Defendant disputes the fairness of the PCN

2.4.1 The Defendant acknowledges the reference to the judgments of HHJ Moloney QC and the Court of Appeal in Parking v Beavis, as well as the subsequent decision by the Supreme Court regarding the alleged non-breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

However, the Defendant emphasizes that each case is unique, and the circumstances surrounding this matter, particularly the 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible' contravention, introduce elements that may distinguish it from the cases cited. The Defendant contends that the nature of the contravention, involving a disabled badge holder assessing the need for payment or display, introduces a layer of complexity not explicitly addressed in the referenced judgments.

The Defendant maintains that the considerations outlined in Aziz v Caixa d'Estalvis de catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa (Case C-415/11) [2013J 3 CMLR 89], which requires a two-stage process to determine the fairness of contract terms, should be applied judiciously to the specifics of this case. The Defendant may contend that there is a potential significant imbalance in the contractual relationship, considering the unique circumstances faced by disabled individuals in parking scenarios.

The Defendant reserves the right to present a detailed analysis of the applicability of the cited judgments to the specific circumstances of this case during the court proceedings. The Defendant maintains that a fair and thorough examination of the facts is necessary to ensure a just outcome in line with the principles of contract law and consumer protection regulations.

2.4.1.1 The Defendant acknowledges the importance of assessing whether there is a "significant imbalance" in light of the consumer's position under national law, as outlined in Aziz v Caixa d'Estalvis de catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa (Case C-415/11) [2013J 3 CMLR 89].

The Defendant contends that, in the context of this specific case involving a 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible' contravention, there may indeed be a significant imbalance. As a blue badge holder, the Defendant faced unique challenges, including the need to assess signage and parking regulations while managing a disability affecting both mobility and memory.

The Defendant asserts that the circumstances surrounding the alleged breach introduce a layer of complexity that may create a significant imbalance in the contractual relationship between the blue badge holder and the Claimant. The Defendant reserves the right to present detailed evidence and arguments during the court proceedings to support this assertion.

The Defendant requests that the court considers the specific challenges faced by disabled individuals in parking scenarios and whether such circumstances create a substantial disparity in the bargaining power between the parties. The Defendant contends that a nuanced evaluation is crucial to determine the fairness of the contract terms in this particular case.

2.4.1.2 The Defendant acknowledges the critical inquiry into whether the term has been imposed "contrary to the requirement of good faith," as stipulated in Aziz v Caixa d'Estalvis de catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa (Case C-415/11) [2013J 3 CMLR 89].

The Defendant asserts that, given the specific circumstances surrounding the 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible' contravention, a thorough examination is needed to determine if the term imposed by the Claimant is in line with the requirement of good faith. The Defendant contends that the nature of the alleged breach, involving a blue badge holder with disabilities assessing the need for payment or display, introduces a layer of complexity that may be relevant to the assessment of good faith.

The Defendant maintains that the circumstances of this case warrant a comprehensive evaluation of whether the term, as applied to a blue badge holder in such circumstances, aligns with the requirement of good faith. The Defendant reserves the right to present evidence and legal arguments during the court proceedings to substantiate the position that, in the unique circumstances faced, the term imposed may be considered contrary to the requirement of good faith.

The Defendant requests that the court takes into account all relevant circumstances to make an informed determination regarding the application of good faith in this specific case.

2.4.2 The Defendant acknowledges the Supreme Court's conclusion that the £85 charge is not considered unfair, as outlined in Parking v Beavis. The Defendant is aware of Lord Sumption and Lord Neuberger's opinion that the same considerations demonstrating the non-penalty nature of the charge also indicate its fairness for the purpose of the Regulations.

However, the Defendant emphasizes that the circumstances of this case involving a 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible' contravention introduce unique factors that may impact the fairness assessment. As a blue badge holder facing challenges related to both mobility and memory, the Defendant contends that the impact of the charge and its fairness may differ significantly from standard parking violations.

The Defendant maintains that a fair and just assessment of the fairness of the charge must consider the specific challenges faced by individuals with disabilities, particularly in situations where the alleged breach involves the use of disabled parking spaces. The Defendant reserves the right to present evidence during the court proceedings to highlight the distinct nature of the alleged contravention and its potential impact on the fairness of the charge.

In light of these considerations, the Defendant requests that the court carefully examines the circumstances surrounding the alleged contravention to determine the fairness of the charge, taking into account the unique challenges faced by blue badge holders.

2.4.3 The Defendant acknowledges the Justices' consideration in Parking v Beavis, where they posed the question of whether ParkingEye, "dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, ... reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to such a term in individual contract negotiations." The Defendant is mindful of the objective nature of this test, focusing on whether a reasonable motorist in a similar position would have agreed to the terms.

However, the Defendant contends that the circumstances of the present case involving a 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible' contravention present distinct challenges. As a blue badge holder, the Defendant faced specific difficulties associated with a disability affecting both mobility and memory. The Defendant maintains that the objective test should consider whether a reasonable motorist with similar challenges would have agreed to the terms imposed by the Claimant.

The Defendant asserts the need for a case-by-case assessment, highlighting the unique circumstances faced by individuals with disabilities in parking scenarios. The Defendant reserves the right to present evidence during the court proceedings to demonstrate that, in the context of the specific challenges posed by the alleged breach, a reasonable blue badge holder may not have agreed to the terms.

The Defendant requests that the court takes into account the nuances of the case and considers the objective test in light of the unique challenges faced by blue badge holders with disabilities.

2.4.4 The Defendant acknowledges Lord Mance's perspective in Parking v Beavis, where he concludes that a customer in Mr. Beavis's position would likely have been satisfied with a proposal of two hours free parking, but might have accepted some form of graduated payment in the event of overstaying. Lord Mance expresses uncertainty about the customer refusing to accept the risk of having to pay £85 (reducible on prompt payment) in the event of overstaying.

While acknowledging Lord Mance's viewpoint, the Defendant emphasizes that the circumstances in the present case differ significantly. The alleged contravention involves a 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible,' and the Defendant, being a blue badge holder, faced distinct challenges due to a disability affecting both mobility and memory. It is the Defendant's contention that Lord Mance's analysis may not fully apply to the unique circumstances faced by individuals with disabilities in parking scenarios.

The Defendant asserts the importance of considering the specific challenges posed by the alleged breach when evaluating the reasonableness of the terms. The Defendant reserves the right to present evidence during the court proceedings to illustrate the distinct nature of the alleged contravention and its potential impact on the reasonableness of the terms as applied to blue badge holders.

In light of these considerations, the Defendant requests that the court takes into account the unique circumstances surrounding the alleged contravention and assesses the reasonableness of the terms accordingly.

2.4.5 The Defendant acknowledges the Justices' observations in Parking v Beavis, particularly their emphasis on the legitimate interest of ParkingEye and the landowners in managing the car park efficiently to benefit the generality of users. The Defendant is mindful of the Justices' consideration of the charge amount in the context of encouraging compliance and preventing overstays.

However, the Defendant asserts that the circumstances surrounding the present case, involving a 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible' contravention, introduce unique considerations. As a blue badge holder facing challenges related to both mobility and memory, the Defendant contends that the impact of the charge and its justifiability may differ in comparison to cases involving standard parking violations.

The Defendant maintains that a nuanced examination is warranted to determine whether the alleged imbalance in the parties' rights, as a result of the charge and associated terms, is contrary to the requirements of good faith. The Defendant reserves the right to present evidence during the court proceedings to illustrate the distinct nature of the alleged contravention and its potential impact on the fairness and reasonableness of the terms.

In light of these considerations, the Defendant requests that the court takes into account the unique circumstances surrounding the alleged contravention when assessing the justifiability of the charge amount and its compatibility with the requirements of good faith.

2.4.6 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's rejection of any allegation that the PCN is unfair. However, the Defendant asserts that this denial overlooks the unique circumstances of the alleged contravention, which involves a 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible.' As a blue badge holder facing challenges related to both mobility and memory, the Defendant contends that the impact of the PCN and its fairness may differ significantly from standard parking violations.

The Defendant maintains that a fair and just assessment of the PCN's fairness must take into account the specific challenges faced by individuals with disabilities, particularly in situations where the alleged breach involves the use of disabled parking spaces. The Defendant reserves the right to present evidence during the court proceedings to highlight the distinct nature of the alleged contravention and its potential impact on the fairness of the PCN.

In light of these considerations, the Defendant requests that the court thoroughly examines the circumstances surrounding the alleged contravention to determine the fairness of the PCN, taking into account the unique challenges faced by blue badge holders.

2.5 The Defendant disputes the details of the PCN

2.5.1 The accuracy of the PCN details is contested, and the Defendant disputes the legitimacy of the charges.

2.5.2 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's denial of the allegation regarding the correctness of the details of the PCN. However, the Defendant maintains that there are legitimate grounds to dispute the accuracy of the PCN details.

The Defendant contends that a thorough examination of the evidence, including timestamped photographic evidence, is necessary to establish the accuracy of the PCN details. The Defendant reserves the right to present a detailed analysis of the evidence during the court proceedings to substantiate the assertion that there are genuine concerns regarding the correctness of the PCN details.

The Defendant requests that the court scrutinizes the evidence provided by both parties to ascertain the accuracy of the PCN details and to ensure a fair and just resolution of the dispute.

2.6 The Defendant avers that the Claimant relies on hearsay evidence

2.6.1 The Claimant's reliance on parking operative evidence is challenged, and the Defendant disputes the credibility of the evidence provided.

2.6.2 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's assertion that the parking operative captured multiple timestamped photographic pieces of evidence of the vehicle parked in breach of a term of parking. However, the Defendant maintains that the accuracy and reliability of the photographic evidence should be subjected to careful scrutiny.

The Defendant contends that a thorough examination of the timestamped photographic evidence is crucial to ensure its authenticity and to determine whether it accurately reflects the circumstances surrounding the alleged contravention. The Defendant reserves the right to present a detailed analysis of the photographic evidence during the court proceedings to address any concerns or discrepancies that may arise.

The Defendant requests that the court, in the interest of a fair and just resolution, critically evaluates the timestamped photographic evidence presented by the Claimant and considers any counterarguments or evidence that may be brought forward during the proceedings. This approach is essential to maintaining the integrity of the evidentiary process and arriving at an accurate determination of the case.

2.7 The Defendant states the Claimant failed to provide a copy of the written contract under Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) abd Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A) 

2.7.1 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's statement regarding the commercial sensitivity of the contract and their intention to submit it at the appropriate time. However, the Defendant emphasizes the importance of timely disclosure of the contract, as it forms a critical basis for evaluating the legitimacy of the Claimant's actions.

The Defendant contends that access to the contract is essential for a thorough understanding of the terms and conditions governing the alleged parking violation. Delaying the submission of the contract may hinder the Defendant's ability to adequately prepare a defense and may impede the court's ability to make an informed judgment.

The Defendant requests that the court encourages the Claimant to provide the contract promptly, within the established timelines, to ensure a fair and transparent legal process. This will enable the Defendant to scrutinize the terms and conditions of the contract and present a well-informed defense during the proceedings.

2.8 The Defendant questions the Claimant's authority to manage the site

2.8.1 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's authority and requests evidence of explicit authorization from the landholder.

2.8.2 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's assertion of authorization to install signage, issue PCNs, and recover charges as presented in points 2.8.2 and 2.8.3. However, the Defendant emphasizes the need to critically evaluate the legitimacy and scope of such authorization.

The Defendant contends that the court should scrutinize the authorization provided by the landowner to the Claimant, especially considering the commercially sensitive nature of the contract. The Defendant reserves the right to question the extent of the Claimant's authority and may seek clarification on the specific terms governing the authorization.

In the interest of transparency and a fair legal process, the Defendant requests that the court ensures a thorough examination of the authorization claimed by the Claimant. This scrutiny is essential for determining the validity of the Claimant's actions and the enforceability of the terms and conditions associated with the alleged parking violation.

2.9 The Defendant questions the signage on site

2.9.1 The Defendant disputes the adequacy and clarity of the signage and requests proof of compliance with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice.

2.9.2 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's assertion that motorists of adequate sight should be able to read the essential terms and conditions of the signage while driving. However, the Defendant contends that this argument oversimplifies the practical considerations and potential hazards associated with reading signage while operating a vehicle.

The Defendant emphasizes the need for signage to be not only legible but also designed with due consideration for the safety of motorists. The Defendant asserts that, especially in the context of a car park, it is reasonable to expect drivers to focus on driving safely rather than attempting to read detailed terms and conditions.

Moreover, the Defendant contends that the alleged contravention involving a 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible' introduces additional considerations related to accessibility and awareness for individuals with disabilities. The Defendant reserves the right to present evidence during the court proceedings to highlight the unique challenges faced by blue badge holders in interpreting and complying with signage requirements.

In the interest of a fair legal process, the Defendant requests that the court considers the practicality and reasonableness of expecting motorists to read detailed terms and conditions while driving, particularly in a parking environment where safety should be a paramount concern.

2.9.3 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's assertion that non-essential text is in a smaller font at the bottom of the sign, intended to be read once the motorist has parked. However, the Defendant maintains that the placement and visibility of essential terms and conditions, particularly those related to parking violations, are of paramount importance for effective communication.

The Defendant contends that placing essential information in a smaller font at the bottom of the sign may not be conducive to clear communication, especially in a busy parking environment. The Defendant reserves the right to present evidence during the court proceedings to argue that signage should prioritize essential terms and conditions, ensuring they are prominently displayed and easily legible for motorists.

In the interest of a fair legal process, the Defendant requests that the court carefully assesses the design and visibility of the signage in question, taking into account the practical challenges faced by motorists, including those with disabilities. This scrutiny is crucial to determining whether the signage effectively communicates the terms and conditions associated with the alleged parking violation.

2.9.4 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's assertion that the purpose of the entrance sign is to alert the motorist to the existence of terms and conditions for parking on the site, in accordance with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice. However, the Defendant contends that the mere existence of terms and conditions does not inherently guarantee that they have been effectively communicated to the motorist.

The Defendant emphasizes that the effectiveness of the signage goes beyond the acknowledgment of the existence of terms and conditions. It is essential that the terms and conditions, especially those crucial to avoiding parking violations, are clear, prominent, and easily understandable.

The Defendant reserves the right to present evidence during the court proceedings to demonstrate that the alleged contravention involving a 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible' may require additional measures to ensure effective communication, particularly for individuals with disabilities.

In the interest of a fair legal process, the Defendant requests that the court carefully evaluates whether the entrance sign fulfills its purpose by effectively communicating the essential terms and conditions associated with parking on the site. This evaluation is crucial to determining the validity of the Claimant's denial of the allegation.
2.9.5 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's denial of the allegation based on the purpose of the entrance sign as stated. However, the Defendant maintains that the denial does not address the specific concerns raised regarding the clarity and visibility of essential terms and conditions, particularly those related to the alleged contravention of 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible.'

The Defendant reiterates the importance of evaluating not only the existence of terms and conditions but also their effectiveness in communicating crucial information to motorists, including those with disabilities. The Defendant reserves the right to present evidence during the court proceedings to substantiate the assertion that the entrance sign may not adequately fulfill its purpose in preventing parking violations, especially for individuals with disabilities.

In the interest of a fair legal process, the Defendant requests that the court thoroughly examines the effectiveness of the entrance sign in communicating essential terms and conditions. This examination is critical to determining the validity of the Claimant's denial of the allegation and ensuring a just resolution of the dispute.

2.10 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's clarification that they are not a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) but are, in fact, a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and uphold their Code of Practice.

2.10.1 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's correction that they are not a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC).

The Defendant takes note of this correction and emphasizes the significance of accurate information regarding the Claimant's affiliations. However, the Defendant asserts that the absence of IPC membership does not alleviate the need for the Claimant to adhere to legal and regulatory standards applicable to parking enforcement.

.2.10.2 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's clarification that they are a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and uphold their Code of Practice.

While the Defendant notes this clarification, it is essential to stress that membership in the BPA and adherence to its Code of Practice do not absolve the Claimant from the obligation to demonstrate compliance with broader legal and regulatory standards governing parking enforcement.

During the court proceedings, the Defendant reserves the right to scrutinize whether the actions taken by the Claimant align with both the BPA's guidelines and the overarching legal framework. The Defendant asserts that a thorough examination of the Claimant's compliance with applicable regulations is necessary for a fair and just resolution of the dispute.

In the interest of a transparent legal process, the Defendant urges the court to carefully assess the Claimant's adherence to industry standards and regulations, ensuring that their actions comply with the necessary legal requirements. This examination is crucial to determining the validity of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and the Claimant's entitlement to pursue the alleged charges.

2.11 The Defendant denies a contract with the Claimant 

2.11.1 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's assertion that PCNs are issued based on a contract with the motorist, and that signage at each site outlines the terms and conditions for authorized parking. The Defendant does not dispute the existence of terms and conditions; however, the central issue under contention is whether these terms and conditions were sufficiently clear, visible, and fair, especially in the context of the alleged contravention of 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible.'

The Defendant maintains that, during the court proceedings, evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the terms and conditions may not have been adequately communicated, particularly in a way that accommodates individuals with disabilities. The Defendant contends that the clarity and fairness of the contractual terms, especially in relation to potential exemptions for Blue Badge holders, need to be thoroughly examined by the court.

In light of this, the Defendant requests the court to assess not only the existence of terms and conditions but also their accessibility and fairness, particularly for individuals with disabilities, to determine the validity of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

2.11.2 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's assertion that they consider it "trite law" that a contract can be formed based on the terms and conditions outlined in signage at each site.

However, the Defendant contends that the formation of a contract does not absolve the Claimant from the requirement that the terms and conditions be clear, fair, and adequately communicated to all users, including those with disabilities. The Defendant maintains that the specifics of the alleged contravention, 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible,' may involve nuanced considerations that require the court's scrutiny.

During the court proceedings, the Defendant intends to present evidence demonstrating that the clarity and fairness of the contractual terms, especially in relation to Blue Badge holders, need careful examination. The Defendant requests the court to assess the sufficiency of the communication of terms and conditions, particularly in cases involving potential exemptions for individuals with disabilities, to determine the validity of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

2.11.3 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's assertion that they ensure signage is ample, clear, and visible, complying with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

The Defendant maintains that, despite the Claimant's assertion, the sufficiency and clarity of signage are subjective matters that require careful examination. In cases involving individuals with disabilities, such as Blue Badge holders, additional considerations must be taken into account regarding the accessibility and comprehensibility of the displayed terms and conditions.

During the court proceedings, the Defendant intends to present evidence that questions the adequacy of the signage, particularly in relation to individuals with disabilities. The Defendant urges the court to assess the sufficiency of signage not only in meeting general industry standards but also in catering to the needs of individuals with disabilities, determining whether the alleged contravention of 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible' was adequately addressed through clear and accessible signage.

2.11.4 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's wish to ensure that motorists are bound by the terms upon entering and remaining at a site, with the goal of obliging all users to comply with those terms.

While the Defendant recognizes the importance of promoting compliance with parking regulations, the central issue in this case is whether the terms, particularly in relation to the alleged contravention of 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible,' were adequately communicated and accessible to all users, including those with disabilities.

The Defendant maintains that the court should carefully consider whether the terms were sufficiently clear, visible, and fair, especially for individuals with disabilities. During the court proceedings, evidence will be presented to highlight any potential shortcomings in the communication of terms, particularly in cases involving exemptions for Blue Badge holders.

The Defendant requests the court to assess the sufficiency of communication of terms, particularly in accommodating individuals with disabilities, to determine the validity of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

2.11.5 The Defendant notes the Claimant's denial of the claim based on the argument presented.

The Defendant maintains that the denial is not a concession of the alleged debt but rather a reservation of rights to contest the claim on the grounds that the terms and conditions, especially in relation to the alleged contravention of 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible,' may not have been sufficiently clear, fair, or communicated in a way that accommodates individuals with disabilities.

During the court proceedings, the Defendant intends to provide evidence supporting the contention that the alleged contravention and subsequent claim are disputable. The Defendant urges the court to carefully evaluate the specifics of the case, especially in light of potential exemptions for Blue Badge holders, to determine the validity of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

2.12 The Defendant denies there was an agreement to pay 

2.12.1 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that a valid contract was formed upon entering the car park based on the displayed signage. While the Defendant acknowledges the general concept of contracts formed through signage, the specific circumstances of the alleged contravention, 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible,' raise concerns about the adequacy of communication and clarity of terms.

The Defendant contends that the terms and conditions, especially those relevant to potential exemptions for Blue Badge holders, may not have been adequately communicated or accessible. In cases involving individuals with disabilities, such as Blue Badge holders, the clarity and visibility of terms become crucial.

During the court proceedings, the Defendant intends to present evidence challenging the adequacy of the communication of terms, arguing that the alleged contract may not have been formed in a manner that is fair, clear, and accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Defendant requests the court to scrutinize the specifics of the alleged contravention and assess whether the contract formation was valid in this context.

2.12.2 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's reliance on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) as it pertains to the recovery of unpaid parking charges from the Registered Keeper. The Defendant contends that the application of PoFA assumes a valid and enforceable parking charge, which is a matter of dispute in this case.

Given the Defendant's contention that the alleged contravention, 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible,' may involve issues related to the clarity and communication of terms, the Defendant questions the validity of the parking charge. The Defendant maintains that, without establishing the validity of the charge and the formation of a fair and clear contract, the provisions of PoFA should not be automatically applied.

During the court proceedings, the Defendant intends to present evidence challenging the enforceability of the parking charge and urges the court to assess the specific circumstances of the alleged contravention in determining the applicability of PoFA.

2.12.3 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant agreed to pay the parking charge. The Defendant maintains that the alleged contravention, 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible,' introduces complexities related to the clarity and communication of terms, particularly for individuals with disabilities, such as Blue Badge holders.

The Defendant contends that the adequacy of communication and the understanding of terms, especially those relevant to potential exemptions for Blue Badge holders, are crucial in determining whether a valid agreement to pay was established. The Defendant disputes any assumption of a clear and unequivocal agreement, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the alleged contravention.

During the court proceedings, the Defendant intends to present evidence challenging the Claimant's assertion of an agreement to pay, highlighting the specific complexities of the case related to the communication of terms, potential exemptions, and the nature of the alleged contravention.

2.13 The Defendant denies they are liable

2.13.1 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the amount of the Parking Charge is justified. The Defendant contends that the alleged contravention, 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible,' involves circumstances that may impact the fairness and reasonableness of the imposed charge.

Given the nature of the alleged contravention and the potential complexities related to individuals with disabilities, such as Blue Badge holders, the Defendant questions the justification for the amount of the Parking Charge. The Defendant maintains that the court should carefully consider the specific circumstances of the case and whether the imposed charge aligns with principles of fairness and reasonableness.

During the court proceedings, the Defendant intends to present evidence challenging the justification for the amount of the Parking Charge, emphasizing the need for a thorough assessment of the alleged contravention and its impact on the overall fairness of the charge.

2.13.2 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's reliance on the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, specifically paragraph 19.5, as sufficient justification for the amount of the Parking Charge. The Defendant contends that the application of the BPA Code of Practice must be assessed in the context of the specific circumstances of the alleged contravention, 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible.'

The Defendant maintains that the complexities introduced by the nature of the alleged contravention, which involves individuals with disabilities, warrant a more nuanced evaluation of the fairness and reasonableness of the imposed charge. The Defendant urges the court to consider the specific circumstances of this case, emphasizing that a generic reference to the BPA Code of Practice may not adequately address the unique challenges posed by the alleged contravention.

During the court proceedings, the Defendant intends to present evidence challenging the sufficiency of the BPA Code of Practice as a standalone justification for the amount of the Parking Charge, calling for a more context-specific assessment.

2.13.3 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant is liable for the Parking Charge based on a breach of contract specified by signage on site. The Defendant contends that the alleged contravention, 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible,' raises questions about the clarity and enforceability of the terms communicated through the signage, especially in the context of potential exemptions for Blue Badge holders.

The Defendant maintains that the court should carefully examine the circumstances surrounding the alleged contravention to determine the validity and enforceability of the contract. The Defendant emphasizes the need for a thorough assessment of whether the signage adequately communicated the terms, considering potential complexities related to individuals with disabilities.

During the court proceedings, the Defendant intends to present evidence challenging the Claimant's assertion of liability based on a breach of contract, highlighting the need for a nuanced evaluation of the specific circumstances of the alleged contravention.

2.13.4 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's denial of liability. The Defendant maintains that the circumstances surrounding the alleged contravention, 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible,' introduce complexities related to the communication of terms, potential exemptions for Blue Badge holders, and the overall fairness of the imposed charge.

The Defendant asserts that a valid defense exists, challenging the enforceability of the contract based on the specific circumstances of the case. The Defendant contends that a fair and reasonable assessment of liability requires careful consideration of the unique challenges posed by the alleged contravention and its impact on individuals with disabilities.

During the court proceedings, the Defendant intends to present evidence supporting the assertion that liability is not clear-cut, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the circumstances surrounding the alleged contravention.

2.14 The Defendant questions if they are being pursued as the keeper or driver of the vehicle 

2.14.1 The Defendant acknowledges that, per the Claim Form, they are being pursued as the registered keeper of the vehicle. However, the Defendant asserts that the pursuit of the registered keeper does not absolve the Claimant of the responsibility to demonstrate that the legal requirements under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been met.

The Defendant contends that the Claimant must establish, with sufficient evidence, that the registered keeper is indeed liable for the alleged contravention. The Defendant asserts the right to question the validity of the pursuit and emphasizes the importance of adhering to the legal procedures outlined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

2.14.2 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's reference to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which grants the Claimant the right to pursue the registered keeper for the unpaid PCN. However, the Defendant contests the validity of this pursuit on the grounds that the circumstances surrounding the alleged contravention, 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible,' raise questions about the clarity of terms communicated through signage, potential exemptions for Blue Badge holders, and overall fairness.

The Defendant emphasizes that the pursuit of the registered keeper is contingent upon the Claimant fulfilling specific legal requirements outlined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Defendant asserts the right to challenge the sufficiency of evidence supporting the pursuit and requests the court's scrutiny of the Claimant's adherence to legal procedures.

2.14.3 The Claimant denial that this is unclear is disputed.  

2.15 The Defendant states the Claimant has no evidence that the Defendant was the driver 

2.15.1 The Defendant acknowledges submitting an appeal on 15/03/2023, identifying themselves as the driver of the vehicle. However, the Defendant contends that the circumstances surrounding the alleged contravention, 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible,' raise questions about the clarity of terms communicated through signage, potential exemptions for Blue Badge holders, and overall fairness.

The Defendant maintains that the appeal process should be considered within the broader context of the case, taking into account the specific details of the alleged contravention. The Defendant asserts the right to challenge the Claimant's interpretation of the appeal and requests the court's examination of the entire appeal process in relation to the unique circumstances of the case.

2.15.2 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's denial of this allegation. While the Defendant acknowledges submitting an appeal on 15/03/2023, identifying themselves as the driver of the vehicle, the circumstances surrounding the alleged contravention, 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible,' introduce complexities related to the communication of terms, potential exemptions for Blue Badge holders, and overall fairness.

The Defendant contends that the denial of this allegation by the Claimant oversimplifies the situation and fails to address the broader issues at hand. The Defendant asserts the right to challenge the Claimant's interpretation of events and requests the court's thorough examination of the entire appeal process, taking into account the unique circumstances of the case.

2.16 The Defendant disputes that the `PPC(s) are outstanding' and requests copies of previous correspondence 

2.16.1 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's clarification that a PCN was issued. However, the Defendant maintains that the circumstances surrounding the alleged contravention, 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible,' introduce complexities related to the communication of terms, potential exemptions for Blue Badge holders, and overall fairness.

The Defendant contends that the mere issuance of a PCN should not be considered in isolation, and the court should scrutinize the entire context of the alleged contravention. The Defendant asserts the right to challenge the validity of the PCN in relation to the specific details of the case.

2.16.2 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that no payment was made in relation to this PCN. However, the crux of the matter lies in the contention that no contravention occurred in the first place. As the Defendant maintains that the circumstances surrounding the alleged contravention were not valid, the question of payment does not arise.

The Defendant asserts that the alleged contravention, 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible,' was not a legitimate basis for the issuance of the PCN, and therefore, no payment was justified. Consequently, the Defendant contends that the PCN should be deemed invalid, and any claims for outstanding payment should be dismissed.

2.16.3 The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's submission of copies of previous correspondence. However, the Defendant asserts that the content of the correspondence and the subsequent responses were based on the understanding that no valid contravention occurred.

In light of the Defendant's position that the PCN was issued without proper justification, the Defendant will present additional evidence during the court proceedings to challenge the validity of the correspondence and demonstrate that any communication regarding payment was made under the assumption of a non-existent contravention.

The Defendant requests the court to consider the context of the correspondence in light of the overarching dispute regarding the validity of the PCN and the alleged contravention.

2.17 The Defendant disputes the amount claimed

2.17.1 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's denial of the invalidity of the claimed amount. The Defendant contends that the entire amount asserted by the Claimant is unjustified due to the fundamental dispute over the validity of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

The Defendant maintains that the PCN was issued erroneously, as the alleged contravention, 'Disabled Badge Expiry Not Visible,' is contested. Consequently, any subsequent charges, including the initial Parking Charge and additional fees, are considered invalid from the Defendant's perspective.

The Defendant asserts the right to challenge the validity of each component of the claimed amount during the court proceedings, providing evidence and arguments to substantiate the position that the entire claim lacks a legitimate basis.

2.17.2 The Defendant disputes the breakdown of the claimed amount as follows:

a. PCN at £100: The Defendant challenges the validity of the initial Parking Charge, asserting that the alleged contravention is contested. As a result, the Defendant disputes the entire basis for the £100 PCN amount.

b. Debt recovery fee of £70: Given the disputed nature of the PCN, the Defendant contests the legitimacy of imposing a debt recovery fee. The Defendant maintains that any such fee is unjustified, as the underlying Parking Charge lacks a valid foundation.

The Defendant seeks to address these disputes and present evidence supporting their contention during the court proceedings. It is the Defendant's position that the entire claimed breakdown lacks a valid basis, considering the contested nature of the PCN.

2.17.3 The Defendant disputes the additional costs and fees claimed, specifically challenging:

a. Court fees of £35: The Defendant contests the inclusion of court fees, arguing that these should not be the responsibility of the Defendant, especially in light of the disputed nature of the alleged contravention.

b. Solicitor fees on entering the claim of £50: The Defendant challenges the inclusion of solicitor fees, as the Defendant believes that such fees are not warranted or applicable in this case.

The Defendant maintains that the total amount of £255.00 is not justified, given the contested basis of the claim and the lack of a valid foundation for the PCN. The Defendant intends to present evidence and arguments in support of these disputes during the court proceedings.

2.18 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's ability to claim interest 

2.18.1 The Defendant disputes the claim for interest. The Defendant contends that, given the contested nature of the alleged contravention and the validity of the PCN, interest should not be applied. The Defendant will present arguments and evidence supporting this dispute during the court proceedings. 

2.18.2 The Defendant disputes the claim for interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984. The Defendant maintains that, in light of the contested nature of the alleged contravention and the validity of the PCN, the application of interest under section 69 is unwarranted. The Defendant will provide detailed arguments and evidence supporting this dispute during the court proceedings. 

2.18.3 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that they are entitled to claim interest. The Defendant contends that, given the contested nature of the alleged contravention and the validity of the PCN, any claim for interest is unjustified. The Defendant will present a comprehensive argument and evidence supporting this dispute during the court proceedings.

2.19 The Defendant states they were not provided a grace period 

2.19.1 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the contravention of 'Disable Badge Expiry Not Visible' does not warrant a grace period. The Defendant contends that, in accordance with standard parking practices and guidelines, a reasonable grace period should be allowed in such circumstances, and any failure to provide such a grace period is disproportionate and unfair. 

2.19.2 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that no grace period was provided for this PCN. The Defendant maintains that a reasonable grace period is customary and necessary in parking enforcement situations, especially considering the circumstances related to the alleged contravention. The Defendant will provide evidence and arguments to support this dispute during the court proceedings. 

3. Conclusion 

3.1 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that a defence has not been made. The Defendant has submitted a detailed defence outlining various grounds for disputing the claim, presenting evidence and legal arguments to support each point. The Defendant asserts that a comprehensive and substantive defence has been provided in response to the Claimant's allegations.

3.2 The Defendant disputes the Claimant's characterization of the defence as a standard and generic template. The defence has been crafted specifically for this case, addressing the particulars outlined in the Particulars of Claim. The Defendant has taken the time to assess the details of the claim, provide relevant evidence, and present legal arguments tailored to the specific circumstances of the alleged parking contravention. Any resemblance to other defences is purely coincidental, as the defence is a genuine and individual response to the present case. 

3.3 The assertion made in point 3.3 is inaccurate. The Defendant did submit an appeal on 15/03/2023, providing a clear indication of their intention to contest the PCN. This appeal serves as a form of correspondence on the matter, and the Claimant should acknowledge and address the points raised therein. 

3.4 While the Small Claims court aims to mitigate costs, it is essential for a fair and transparent legal process that both parties have the opportunity to present their case and respond to each other's arguments. The Defendant has the right to submit a defence, and it is within the procedural norms for both parties to engage in a structured exchange of information. This ensures a balanced and thorough consideration of the case by the court. 

3.5 It is acknowledged that there is a proper procedure for amending a defence and adding further defence points. However, it's important to emphasize that the Defendant has the right to present a comprehensive defence that addresses all relevant points. The aim is to ensure a fair and just resolution of the matter, allowing both parties to fully state their positions within the bounds of the legal process. 

3.6  It is understood that the process involves submitting witness statements and relevant documents rather than introducing new defence points. The Defendant will adhere to this procedure and focus on presenting a clear account of the facts pertinent to the case. The intention is to facilitate a streamlined and efficient resolution, respecting the rules and guidelines of the legal proceedings. 

3.7 The Defendant acknowledges the importance of a smooth legal process and assures compliance with the guidelines. The focus will be on consolidating defences and replies into as few documents as necessary, obtaining court approval for any amendments, and ensuring that all submissions, including witness statements, are filed and served in a timely manner. This approach aims to contribute to the efficiency and clarity of the legal proceedings. 

3.8 The Defendant acknowledges the procedural requirements outlined by the Claimant. Any amendments to the defence will be conducted in accordance with the proper legal procedure, utilizing the N244 Form, and ensuring that all relevant parties, including the Claimant and the court, are duly notified. The Defendant commits to timely communication and compliance with the established process, with the aim of facilitating an efficient and transparent legal proceeding. 

3.9 The Defendant acknowledges the relevant provisions of CPR 17.1 and CPR 15.9 and will adhere to the stipulated procedures for amending the statement of case. Any future amendments will be conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations set forth by the court, ensuring compliance with the prescribed process and obtaining necessary permissions when required. This approach is adopted with due consideration for the efficient use of court resources and the mitigation of costs. 

3.10 The Defendant disputes the assertion that they were adequately made aware of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in the Letter Before Claim. It is contended that the mentioned letter lacked sufficient details and clarity regarding the specific rules and procedures to be followed, thus failing to provide proper guidance on the CPR requirements. The Defendant emphasizes the importance of clear and explicit communication in adherence to the rules governing legal proceedings.

4.0 I respectfully request the Court's consideration in dismissing the claim brought by the Claimant against the Defendant and awarding costs to the Defendant in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

Summary of Grounds for Dismissal:

• Lack of Clear Evidence: The Defendant contends that the evidence presented by the Claimant lacks clarity and specificity, making it insufficient to establish a valid claim. Key points in the Claimant's case remain unsubstantiated.

• Failure to Establish Breach of Contract: The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has not effectively demonstrated a breach of contract, as the purported contract terms and the alleged contravention remain unclear.

• Disputed Interpretation of Signage: The Defendant disputes the interpretation of the signage, arguing that the terms and conditions were not adequately communicated, and the alleged breach is not substantiated.

• Procedural Deficiencies: The Claimant's failure to adhere to the proper procedures outlined in the Civil Procedure Rules is evident. The Defendant was not provided with clear information regarding the rules governing the legal proceedings in the Letter Before Claim.

• Absence of Compliance with CPR 17: The Defendant contends that the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 17, which requires clarity and specificity when raising a claim. Amendments made by the Claimant lack proper court approval and have resulted in confusion and increased costs.

Request for Dismissal and Costs:

In light of the above points, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Claimant's case due to the failure to meet the evidentiary and procedural requirements outlined in the CPR.

Furthermore, the Defendant requests the Court to exercise its discretion to award costs to the Defendant, pursuant to CPR 27.14, taking into consideration the improper conduct and lack of clarity in the Claimant's case.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe 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. 

Signed: [Defendant's Name]

Dated: [Date]

Full Name of Defendant: [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

Address of Defendant: [DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS]