Chalon Way West Retail Park - ParkingEye

[b789]

@billnit, here is the defence you can copy and paste into the MCOL defence webform:

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or at all. The Defendant was the registered keeper (RK) of the vehicle. The Claimant expressly pleads that the Defendant is liable as RK pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). That is denied.

2. The Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of PoFA. In particular, its Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails paragraph 9(2)(e), as it does not contain the required invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge. Consequently, the Claimant cannot transfer any liability incurred by the driver to the Defendant as keeper.

3. PoFA imposes no obligation upon a keeper to identify the driver. There is no presumption that the RK was the driver and no adverse inference can properly be drawn from a keeper declining to identify the driver. If the Claimant cannot establish keeper liability under PoFA, it is put to strict proof by factual evidence that the Defendant was the driver.

4. The Defendant had already expressly notified the Claimant, by email dated 24 December 2025, that the Defendant was responding as keeper, that the NtK did not comply with PoFA and that the driver would not be identified. The Claimant nevertheless issued proceedings expressly relying upon PoFA keeper liability.

5. The Defendant will refer to ParkingEye Ltd v Ghansah, Claim No. M4FC56Q6, County Court at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch, in which this same Claimant's claim against a keeper was dismissed by order dated 29 December 2025 because its NtK did not contain the invitation to pay required by PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e). The Defendant is aware that this is not a binding authority but puts the Claimant, which conducts its litigation internally, on notice that the Defendant is aware of that case and will rely upon the sealed order as relevant to the identical defect raised here.

6. The Defendant further disputes the quantum claimed. The NtK demanded £100, whereas the PoC claim £130 before the separately stated court fee and legal representative's costs. The additional £30 is unexplained and no contractual or other legal basis for it is pleaded. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its entitlement to that additional sum.

7. The Defendant denies receiving any Letter Before Claim (LoC). The Claimant's letter dated 5 January 2026 nevertheless positively asserts that an LoC had been sent and characterises the Defendant's email dated 24 December 2025 as a reply to it. The Claimant is put to strict proof that a compliant LoC was sent, including production of the LoC and evidence of its dispatch. The Defendant reserves the right to rely upon any failure to comply with the applicable pre-action requirements when the Court considers conduct, case management and costs.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the contractual terms relied upon, that those terms were adequately communicated by the signage in place at the material time, and that the Claimant had sufficient authority from the landholder to enter into contracts and pursue parking charges in its own name.

9. Whether the driver incurred a parking charge and whether the Defendant is liable for it are separate matters. The Claimant has expressly pleaded PoFA as the basis for transferring liability to the Defendant as RK. The NtK does not comply with the mandatory requirements of PoFA and the Claimant has pleaded no factual basis establishing that the Defendant was the driver.

10. Accordingly, the Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant and respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim.

The defence is just the "hooks" that you will later hang your Witness Statement (WS) facts on.