Received POC from BWLegal on behalf of UK CPM Ltd

[Barbudaprince]

This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by UK Car Park Management Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Wednesday, 19 March 2025. The notice itself is dated Thursday, 20 March 2025, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.

The notice appears to have been issued as Other. Issue method detail: By post, without anything affixed to the vehicle windscreen. Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Wheatstone House, 650-654 Chiswick High Road W4 5BB.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NOT_APPLICABLE: PoFA timing check is unavailable for 'Other' issue method. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Monday, 24 March 2025 (5 days after the alleged event).

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: Yes
- Letter of Claim: Yes
- County Court claim: Yes
- Letter of Claim responded to: No
- Letter of Claim source: Bulk litigation firm
- Letter of Claim firm: BW Legal

County Court claim deadlines: issue date Friday, 17 April 2026, deemed service Wednesday, 22 April 2026, AoS deadline 4pm Wednesday, 06 May 2026, defence deadline without AoS 4pm Wednesday, 06 May 2026, and defence deadline with AoS 4pm Wednesday, 20 May 2026.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

---

The registered keeper is a tenant at the site.

Postcode is incorrect on PCN

Two different times for the incident and issued time have been added to the PCN and the follow up "final demand before action" letter respectively. The PCN  issued time precedes the time of incident, oddly.

Detail lacking in the particulars of claim (within the claim form)

Includes contractual recovery costs of £70 in the claim.


I will create a Google drive here and post all of the documents received thus far.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...EHUVAkKs1f

[b789]

Hi @Barbudaprince. You need to make the Google Drive files publicly accessible as I cannot view them.

There is no mad rush to defend the claim and if you want to extend the time available, as long as you acknowledge service by 4pm on Wednesday 6 May, you will then have until 4pm on Wednesday 20 May to submit the defence. Just follow this to file your AoS and I will then have time to review the Google Drive documents once you have made it available.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zi...e.pdf?dl=0

[Barbudaprince]

Thanks will follow the AoS later on. I have recently been through this process with you so I have some more awareness of it.

I have made the Google drive link public. I will try to add the documents later on also.

[Barbudaprince]

Good day

Have logged my acknowledgement of service just now.

I have also uploaded all of the documents redacted to my drive location would appreciate if you could confirm visibility of those please.

Bests,

[b789]

Hi @Barbudaprince. Yes the documents are visible. I'll have a look at them later today.

[b789]

Before the defence is finalised, I need to clarify the registered keeper’s connection with Wheatstone House. As the driver has not been identified, that must remain the case. The burden of proof must rest on the Claimant to prove the defendant was the driver.

Is the registered keeper a tenant/resident at Wheatstone House, or was the vehicle present because it was being used in connection with a visit to someone who lives there?

If the registered keeper is a tenant or resident, please check the tenancy agreement, lease, permit documents, resident handbook, managing agent correspondence, or any other paperwork dealing with parking. I need to know whether any of those documents mention parking rights, allocated spaces, visitor parking, permits, communal parking, or any right to use the parking area.

If the vehicle was present in connection with a visit to a resident, please confirm whether that resident is a tenant, leaseholder or occupier, whether the resident gave permission for the vehicle to be parked, and whether the resident gave any instruction about where the vehicle could be parked.

This is important because residential parking cases can be very different from ordinary private parking claims. If the registered keeper, or the resident connected with the vehicle’s presence at the site, already had rights arising from occupation of the premises, UKCPM cannot simply assume that its signage overrides those pre-existing rights. That may give rise to a primacy of contract / residential rights defence point. However, the defence must not identify the driver, and I need the underlying facts about the keeper’s or resident’s rights before that point can be safely included.

There are already several defects in UKCPM’s paperwork and claim which can also be used in the defence.

The first issue is the location. The PCN and claim appear to use the postcode W4 5SA. However, Royal Mail shows the residential premises at Wheatstone House, Flats 1-10, 650-654 Chiswick High Road, London, as W4 5BB. If W4 5SA is not the postcode for the alleged location, this is significant. The Notice to Keeper must specify the relevant land for PoFA keeper liability, and the Particulars of Claim must properly identify where the alleged contract was supposedly formed. Here, the claim gives an inadequate location and appears to rely on an incorrect postcode. That will be pleaded as a failure to identify the relevant land accurately and a failure to plead the alleged contractual location properly.

The second issue is the lack of any proper period of parking or observation. The Notice to Keeper does not specify a real period of parking. It merely says that “the period of parking to which this notice relates is the period immediately preceding the incident time stated above.” That is not a start time, end time, duration, or recorded observation period. It is vague wording that does not actually specify the period required by PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a).

This also matters for contract formation. UKCPM has to prove that a contract was actually formed. The Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires a consideration period before a parking contract can be treated as formed, with an absolute minimum of 5 minutes for the driver to read the terms and decide whether to accept them or leave. There is no evidence on the Notice to Keeper that any observation period was recorded at all, still less that the driver was given at least 5 minutes opportunity to read the signs. The defence will therefore put UKCPM to strict proof of the alleged period of parking, the observation period, the signage visible to the driver, and the basis on which they say a contract was formed.

The third issue is the gap between the photographic timestamps and the alleged “period of parking”. The two photographs on the NtK appear to have been taken only a few seconds apart at around 06:06, while the NtK states the incident time as 06:17. UKCPM may try to imply from this that there was an observed period between 06:06 and 06:17, but the NtK does not actually say that. It does not state that the vehicle was continuously observed from 06:06 to 06:17, does not identify any start time, does not identify any end time for an observation period, and does not state who observed the vehicle or how the alleged period was recorded.

For PoFA purposes, the NtK must specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. It is not enough for UKCPM to display two timestamped images and leave the keeper to infer a period for themselves. The statutory notice itself states only that the period of parking was “the period immediately preceding the incident time stated above”, which is circular and undefined. That wording does not specify a period of parking at all.

The same problem affects contract formation. The photographs may show that the vehicle was present at the moments the images were taken, but they do not prove that the driver had been given a fair opportunity to read the signs, consider the terms, and decide whether to accept or leave. The PPSCoP requires a consideration period before any parking contract can be treated as formed, with an absolute minimum of 5 minutes. The NtK does not record any observation period capable of proving that this happened. UKCPM will therefore be put to strict proof of the actual period of parking, any continuous observation, the consideration period allowed, the signs visible from the vehicle’s position, and the basis on which it says a contract was formed before the PCN was issued.

The fourth issue is the Particulars of Claim. The PoC are poor. They are generic and do not properly explain the alleged contract, the specific term breached, the wording of the sign relied upon, how the driver supposedly accepted the terms, whether the Defendant is pursued as driver or keeper, or how PoFA is said to apply. They merely assert that the Defendant is liable “as driver, or keeper per Sch. 4 PoFA2012”. That is not proper pleading. It is just a generic alternative allegation without the facts needed to support either route.

The fifth issue is the added sum. The claim refers to “£70 contractual recovery costs”, but the figures do not appear to match that. The original PCN was £100 and the claim appears to be for £160, which suggests an added £60, not £70. In any event, if they are relying on PoFA keeper liability, the maximum keeper liability is limited to the amount stated on the Notice to Keeper. The added sum will therefore be challenged as unrecoverable, inadequately pleaded, and an attempt at double recovery.

The sixth issue is UKCPM’s authority. They will need to prove that they had authority from the landowner or other lawful party to operate at this exact location, issue charges, and sue in their own name. This is particularly important if the site is residential, because tenants, leaseholders and residents may have rights that take priority over any later parking scheme imposed by a parking company.

For now, please confirm whether you are a tenant/resident or visitor, and provide anything you have showing your right, or the resident’s right, to use the parking area. Also keep a screenshot or PDF of a Royal Mail postcode search result showing Wheatstone House, 650-654 Chiswick High Road, W4 5BB. That will be useful evidence later. https://www.royalmail.com/find-a-postcode

Once that information is confirmed, the defence can be finalised for MCOL. It will need to be concise, but it should preserve the key points: defective Particulars of Claim, incorrect/inadequate location, no specified period of parking, no evidence of the required consideration period, inconsistent times, no identified driver, no PoFA keeper liability, lack of standing, residential rights if applicable, and the unrecoverable added sum.

[Barbudaprince]

Thanks for your reply and advice.

The registered keeper of the vehicle is a tenant at the property. I have uploaded the entire tenancy agreement onto the drive https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...H8W7S9iolZ . I have also uploaded a image file of the specific parking clause. 

All sounds like great defence points. I considered the location point previously (under my other case - ) and advice was that this wasn't a strong defence under Pofa as the property is still identifiable to me?  Anyhow I have all of the info from that case here https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...vsJb7T4mYX

[b789]

@Barbudaprince, can I please clarify that this case is in addition to the one for 3 PCNs at the same location for the same vehicle?

I am going to assume that it is, for the moment. Please continue not to identify the driver. The defence should remain on the basis that you are the registered keeper and that the driver has not been identified.

The first issue is that this appears to be a second UKCPM claim involving the same defendant, same vehicle, same location and same parking regime. The earlier claim was issued on 18 July 2025 for three PCNs from April/May 2024. This new claim is for a PCN dated 20 March 2025, so UKCPM knew, or ought to have known, about it before issuing the earlier claim. They have chosen to split closely related litigation instead of dealing with all known PCNs involving the same defendant, same vehicle, same residential site and same parking regime in one claim.

That is not yet cause of action estoppel because the first claim has not been finally decided. However, it may still be unreasonable and oppressive claim-splitting. It risks duplicated proceedings, duplicated work, duplicated costs and inconsistent findings on the same underlying issues: the same site, same signage, same permit scheme, same tenancy clause, same landowner authority, same PoFA issues, same postcode defect, and same added recovery costs. This should be raised in the defence as unreasonable and oppressive litigation conduct.

The second issue is that the PCN for this claim is specifically for “Not Displaying a Valid Permit”. That is important, because UKCPM’s case is not that the vehicle was obstructing an access road, blocking a footpath, blocking another vehicle, or parked dangerously. Their own allegation is simply permit display.

The tenancy clause needs to be handled carefully. It does refer to not parking without a valid permit where a parking scheme is in operation. However, that does not automatically create a direct contractual debt owed to UKCPM. The tenancy is between landlord and tenant. UKCPM still has to prove that its own signage created an enforceable contract, that the permit-display term was properly incorporated, that the driver accepted that term, that the term was breached, and that UKCPM had authority to charge and sue in its own name.

The tenancy clause also refers to parking spaces, garages, driveways with hard standing and dropped kerbs, and not obstructing roadways, footpaths or access. You have said the vehicle was parked on hard standing with a dropped kerb and was not blocking any roadway, footpath, walkway or access route. That matters because UKCPM will need to prove exactly why the vehicle’s position was not permitted or designated, if they try to argue anything beyond the alleged lack of a displayed permit.

The UKCPM sign says that a valid UKCPM permit must be clearly displayed in the front windscreen at all times. It also says there is “No parking on access roads / roadways”. Since the PCN allegation is only “Not Displaying a Valid Permit”, the defence will focus on whether UKCPM can prove that a permit-display term was properly incorporated and enforceable against the keeper, rather than letting them muddy the waters with access-road or obstruction points which are not the pleaded contravention.

There is also a major location issue. Royal Mail identifies the residential premises as Flats 1-10, Wheatstone House, 650-654 Chiswick High Road, London, W4 5BB. UKCPM’s paperwork uses W4 5SA, which is not the correct postcode for the residential premises. The claim itself also gives an inadequate location. That matters because the NtK must specify the relevant land for PoFA keeper liability, and the Particulars of Claim must properly identify where the alleged contract was formed. A claim based on an alleged contract cannot be properly pleaded if the claimant cannot accurately identify the land where that contract supposedly arose.

The NtK also fails to specify a proper period of parking. It does not state a start time, end time, duration or recorded observation period. It merely says that “the period of parking to which this notice relates is the period immediately preceding the incident time stated above.” That is not a specified period of parking for PoFA purposes.

There is then the related issue of contract formation. The two photos on the NtK appear to have been taken only a few seconds apart at around 06:06, while the alleged incident time is 06:17. UKCPM may try to imply an observation period between those times, but the NtK does not actually say that the vehicle was continuously observed during that period. It does not identify when observation began, when it ended, who observed the vehicle, or whether the driver was allowed the required consideration period. The PPSCoP requires a consideration period before a driver can be treated as having accepted parking terms, with an absolute minimum of 5 minutes. The NtK does not evidence that.

The Particulars of Claim are also poor. They are generic and fail to properly plead the contract, the specific sign or term relied upon, how the term was accepted, the precise breach, the basis of keeper liability, or a proper calculation of the sum claimed. They simply say the defendant is liable as driver or keeper under PoFA, without pleading facts to support either.

The added sum is also defective. The PCN was £100, but the claim is £160 and refers to “£70 contractual recovery costs”, which does not even match the figures. In any event, if UKCPM relies on keeper liability, PoFA limits keeper liability to the amount stated on the NtK.

For now, please provide the full tenancy agreement if possible, any permit documents, any managing agent correspondence about parking, and any photos showing where the vehicle was parked in relation to the hard standing, dropped kerb, UKCPM signs, access roads and walkways.

The defence will be worked up from these points once the remaining documents and evidence are checked.

[Barbudaprince]

@b789 same location, different vehicle. I wonder what changes in your initial issues summary below because of this. 


Regarding your point about their PCN reason stating "not displaying a permit", that is as vehicle wasn't part in a bay. In the other case of the three pcns the reason was "not displaying a permit", however, in one of those PCNs the vehicle was parked in a bay, so there is some contradiction in their enforcement.

Will provide photos of parked location shortly in relation to the signs.

[b789]

@Barbudaprince, thanks. The fact that this claim involves a different vehicle changes the “second claim” point, but it does not remove it completely.

It means we should not say this is the same defendant, same vehicle, same location and same parking regime. That would be inaccurate.

The more careful point is that UKCPM is pursuing a second live claim against the same defendant at the same residential location, under the same parking scheme and same alleged contractual regime. The fact that the vehicle is different weakens the argument slightly, because each PCN relates to a different vehicle and a different alleged contravention. However, UKCPM still knew, or ought to have known, about this March 2025 PCN before issuing the earlier July 2025 claim. If both claims involve the same defendant, same site, same parking scheme, same signage, same landowner authority, same postcode issue, same PoFA issues and same added recovery costs, there is still a legitimate point about fragmented litigation and duplicated proceedings.

So I would not call it cause of action estoppel. The first claim has not been decided, and the vehicles are different. The better point is unreasonable and oppressive claim-splitting/inefficient duplicated litigation. It is still worth including, but not as the lead defence point unless space permits. The court may simply treat the PCNs as separate causes of action, but it is still relevant conduct because UKCPM chose to issue multiple claims against the same tenant at the same residential site when the issues overlap heavily.

On the contravention reason, that is potentially useful. UKCPM’s stated reason for this PCN is “Not Displaying a Valid Permit”. That is the allegation they have chosen. If the vehicle was not parked in a marked bay, then UKCPM may later try to argue that the real problem was that it was not parked in a bay or was parked somewhere unauthorised. But that is not what the PCN says. They should not be allowed to shift the basis of the allegation later.

The point is even stronger if, in the earlier claim, one vehicle was parked in a bay but was still issued a PCN for the same “not displaying a permit” reason. That suggests their enforcement is not genuinely about whether the vehicle was in a bay or causing obstruction. It appears to be a blanket permit-display allegation. That helps keep the focus on whether UKCPM can prove that a valid permit-display term was properly incorporated, whether the driver was given the required consideration period, whether the signage applied to the place where the vehicle was positioned, and whether UKCPM can pursue the registered keeper under PoFA.

If you can, please provide photos showing where this vehicle was parked in relation to the signs, the hard standing, dropped kerb, access road, roadway, footpath, walkways and any marked bays. Those photos will be important. We need to be able to show whether the vehicle was on an access road/roadway, whether it was obstructing anything, whether there were signs visible from that position, and whether the area looked like land where parking was permitted or at least tolerated under the residential arrangements.

For now, the defence summary will be as follows:

• This is not a same-vehicle second claim, so that point must be toned down.
  
• It remains a second live UKCPM claim against the same defendant at the same residential location under the same parking scheme.
  
• The PCN allegation remains “Not Displaying a Valid Permit”, so UKCPM should be held to that allegation and not allowed to morph the case into a different allegation about bay parking or obstruction.
  
• The tenancy clause and signage remain relevant, but UKCPM must still prove the contractual basis, signage visibility, authority, PoFA compliance and keeper liability.
  
• The wrong postcode/inadequate location point remains unchanged and is still important.
  
• The lack of a specified period of parking and lack of evidence of the mandatory consideration period remain important.
  
• The added sum point remains unchanged.
  
• The poor Particulars of Claim point remains unchanged.
  

I will be travelling from the 9th May and so will try and get your defence prepared before then. If not, there is still no rush as you have submitted an AoS (I presume) which gives you until 4pm Wednesday 20 May to submit your defence.