05-04-2026, 06:46 PM
@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.
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.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
