04-26-2026, 07:54 PM
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.
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.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
