09-28-2026, 09:11 AM
I am following on from a post I created some time ago at FTLA as replies have slowed down and I would still be very grateful for some advice.
I have now received a Claim Form and have begun to create a defence based on other posts I've found. I am unsure if the format is correct, so please let me know if it is not. I am also obviously unsure of the content of my defence, but the general basis is on the lack of any consideration period given the time the vehicle was stopped was less than 2 minutes.
If it is relevant, the driver has not been identified.
Particulars of Claim:
The driver of vehicle registration **** breached the prominently displayed terms and conditions of parking at UXBRIDGE IND EST WALLINGFORD RD SALISBURY RD ARUNDEL RD UXBRIDGE UB8 2RZ - ARUNDEL RD UXBRIDGE UB8 2RZ. on 19/05/2025 by PARKING IN NO PARKING AREA. The signage constituted an offer of a unilateral contract accepted by the act of parking, In the event of breach, the driver agreed to pay the specified parking charge.
The Parking Charge Notices remain unpaid after 28 days and the Defendant, as driver and/or registered keeper, is liable for the outstanding sums. Despite demands, payment has not been made.
The Claimant therefore claims £100 for the PCN, £70.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £17.01 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% per annum, accruing at £0.04 per day until judgment or earlier payment.
_____
I have read that the PoC from Gladstones are often defective. Is that the case here or have they included everything properly?
My defence so far is as follows:
1. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The defendant denies any liability to the Claimant and that any debt is owed.
2. Time-stamped images supplied by the Claimant show the vehicle was stopped for less than two minutes. The BPA Code of Practice states that “they must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration”. The concept of such a period is to allow the driver time to read the signage and decide if they want to accept, not to interpret while they are driving past.
3. PCM (UK) v Bull and UKCPS v Masterson establish that signage that is entirely forbidding in nature does not make a contractual offer and simply states a prohibition. As there is no offer, the driver could not have accepted a contract by stopping.
4. “Stopping” and “Parking” are distinct actions. Homeguard Services Ltd v Jopson (2016) ruled that “merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it”. The Claimant alleges that the driver had parked the vehicle, however, this is refuted by their own supplied images showing the vehicle stopped for a brief period of time while the driver remained inside the vehicle. This cannot be interpreted as an intention to enter into a parking contract.
Once again, I am unsure if this is correct. I appreciate any advice.
I have now received a Claim Form and have begun to create a defence based on other posts I've found. I am unsure if the format is correct, so please let me know if it is not. I am also obviously unsure of the content of my defence, but the general basis is on the lack of any consideration period given the time the vehicle was stopped was less than 2 minutes.
If it is relevant, the driver has not been identified.
Particulars of Claim:
The driver of vehicle registration **** breached the prominently displayed terms and conditions of parking at UXBRIDGE IND EST WALLINGFORD RD SALISBURY RD ARUNDEL RD UXBRIDGE UB8 2RZ - ARUNDEL RD UXBRIDGE UB8 2RZ. on 19/05/2025 by PARKING IN NO PARKING AREA. The signage constituted an offer of a unilateral contract accepted by the act of parking, In the event of breach, the driver agreed to pay the specified parking charge.
The Parking Charge Notices remain unpaid after 28 days and the Defendant, as driver and/or registered keeper, is liable for the outstanding sums. Despite demands, payment has not been made.
The Claimant therefore claims £100 for the PCN, £70.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £17.01 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% per annum, accruing at £0.04 per day until judgment or earlier payment.
_____
I have read that the PoC from Gladstones are often defective. Is that the case here or have they included everything properly?
My defence so far is as follows:
1. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The defendant denies any liability to the Claimant and that any debt is owed.
2. Time-stamped images supplied by the Claimant show the vehicle was stopped for less than two minutes. The BPA Code of Practice states that “they must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration”. The concept of such a period is to allow the driver time to read the signage and decide if they want to accept, not to interpret while they are driving past.
3. PCM (UK) v Bull and UKCPS v Masterson establish that signage that is entirely forbidding in nature does not make a contractual offer and simply states a prohibition. As there is no offer, the driver could not have accepted a contract by stopping.
4. “Stopping” and “Parking” are distinct actions. Homeguard Services Ltd v Jopson (2016) ruled that “merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it”. The Claimant alleges that the driver had parked the vehicle, however, this is refuted by their own supplied images showing the vehicle stopped for a brief period of time while the driver remained inside the vehicle. This cannot be interpreted as an intention to enter into a parking contract.
Once again, I am unsure if this is correct. I appreciate any advice.
