UKPC Parking-Parked in an area where no parking allowed w/blue Badge WF1 2DF

[rhbmcse]

Please find attached the N1SDT form with the particulars of claim. 

I confirm that the claim has been submitted through DSB Legal as UKPCs representative as you will see on the form.

Many thanks.

Rob.

[b789]

@rhbmcse, with an issue date of 5th August, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th August to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 7th September to submit your defence.

You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qfj81ckwc...r9v4u&dl=0

I now generally advise submitting a short defence through MCOL. Whilst MCOL is limited in that it does not allow formatting or the attachment of transcripts and other documents, it has the important advantage of being submitted instantly and entered into the court system immediately. Given the continuing administrative failures at the CNBC, that is now the safer course. Any authorities, transcripts or other documents can be filed later with the Witness Statement if the claim progresses that far. (unlikely)

You will need to copy and paste the defence into the MCOL defence text box. It has been checked to ensure that it fits within the 122-line limit.

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant and denies that any debt is owed.

PRELIMINARY MATTER – DEFICIENT PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

Yes. I would strengthen paragraphs 2–8 in exactly that way. The claim form does not state that detailed Particulars will follow; it presents the wording on the form itself as the Particulars of Claim.

2. As a preliminary matter, the Particulars of Claim fail adequately to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16. Although the Claimant identifies a date, location and generic description of the alleged contravention, it has failed properly to plead the contractual cause of action upon which the claim depends.

3. The Particulars state only that the Defendant is pursued for "breach of the terms on the signs (the contract)" and give the reason "Parked In AN Area Where No Parking Is Allowed." The Claimant has not identified the precise contractual term or wording allegedly breached, the obligation said to arise from that term, or the conduct said to constitute acceptance of the alleged contract.

4. CPR 16.4 requires Particulars of Claim to contain a concise statement of the facts upon which the Claimant relies. Where an agreement is alleged to have arisen by conduct, Practice Direction 16 paragraph 7.5 requires the conduct relied upon to be specified and to state by whom, when and where the acts constituting that conduct were done.

5. In Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC), Mrs Justice Jefford DBE held at paragraph 42 that it is implicit that Particulars of Claim must set out the claimant's case as to whether an alleged agreement is oral, in writing, made by conduct, or some combination thereof. The generic reference in this claim to "the terms on the signs" does not identify the contractual term upon which the Claimant actually relies.

6. Furthermore, Practice Direction 7C paragraph 5.2 expressly requires detailed Particulars of Claim either to be included within the online claim form or, alternatively, to be served separately. Where the latter course is chosen, the Claimant must state in the online claim form that "detailed particulars of claim will follow" and provide a brief summary of the claim. The Claimant did not do so.

7. The Claimant therefore elected to include its detailed Particulars within the claim form pursuant to PD7C paragraph 5.2(1). The online character limit does not excuse deficient pleading because PD7C paragraph 5.2(2) expressly provided the Claimant with the alternative of serving properly detailed Particulars separately. The Claimant chose not to use that procedure and should not now be permitted to require the Defendant to reconstruct its contractual case from evidence produced later. Nor could any later document properly be treated as the separate detailed Particulars contemplated by paragraph 5.2(2), when the mandatory indication that such Particulars would follow was absent from the claim form.

8. The Court is therefore invited to consider striking out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4. Alternatively, if the Claimant wishes to alter or supplement its pleaded contractual case, the Defendant submits that this should require the appropriate amendment to the Particulars, with the Defendant afforded permission to amend the Defence accordingly.

NO LIABILITY AS DRIVER OR KEEPER

9. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the material time. The Defendant has never admitted to being the driver and has never identified the driver to the Claimant.

10. The Particulars expressly pursue the Defendant as the driver and, in the alternative, as keeper pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA").

11. The Claimant cannot categorically identify the Defendant as the driver. The Particulars plead no fact whatsoever establishing that the Defendant was driving. Registered keeper status does not identify the driver, and the Claimant is put to strict proof by actual evidence identifying the Defendant as the driver.

12. The Defendant was under no legal obligation to identify the driver to a private parking operator. Schedule 4 PoFA instead provides a statutory mechanism whereby a creditor may, subject to strict compliance with its requirements, recover an unpaid parking charge from a keeper where the driver has not been identified.

13. The Defendant's decision not to identify the driver does not establish that the Defendant was driving and cannot cure any failure by the Claimant to comply with the statutory requirements necessary to hold the keeper liable.

FAILURE TO ESTABLISH KEEPER LIABILITY UNDER POFA

14. The Claimant's alternative case pursuant to Schedule 4 PoFA is denied.

15. The alleged event occurred on 17 October 2025. No Notice to Driver having been given at the material time, paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 applied. The Notice to Keeper bears an issue date of 25 October 2025 but was not received and delivered to the Defendant until 7 November 2025.

16. Paragraphs 9(4) and 9(5) require the Notice to Keeper to be delivered within the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. The relevant period therefore expired on 31 October 2025.

17. Paragraph 9(6) provides that a notice sent by post is presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it was posted. The statutory presumption therefore depends upon the actual date of posting, not merely the date printed upon or generated on the notice.

18. During the appeal process the Claimant was expressly required to prove when the Notice to Keeper was actually entered into the postal system. The Claimant failed to provide such evidence and relied only upon the date appearing on the notice.

19. The Claimant's own Accredited Trade Association Code expressly requires parking operators to retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply the date upon which the notice was generated, including the date upon which any third-party mail consolidator actually placed it into the postal system.

20. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof by contemporaneous postal dispatch records, proof of posting, mail consolidator records or equivalent evidence of the actual date upon which the Notice to Keeper entered the postal system. The issue date printed upon the notice is not itself evidence of posting on that date.

21. In the absence of such evidence, particularly where the Notice to Keeper was actually delivered on 7 November 2025, the Claimant cannot establish that the Notice was delivered within the mandatory relevant period and cannot establish keeper liability pursuant to Schedule 4 PoFA.

THE VEHICLE WAS NOT PARKED

22. Further and in the alternative, the Defendant denies that the circumstances amounted to the contravention pleaded.

23. The Particulars expressly allege that the vehicle was "Parked In AN Area Where No Parking Is Allowed." The vehicle was stationary for approximately 65 seconds solely to facilitate the loading or unloading of pre-ordered heavy goods. It was not parked.

24. The Defendant relies upon Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, a County Court appeal decision of HHJ Harris QC, in which the Court distinguished parking from the temporary stopping of a vehicle for the purpose of loading or unloading.

25. The distinction is directly relevant. The Claimant has elected to plead that the vehicle was parked. A temporary stop of approximately 65 seconds while a loading operation was undertaken is materially different from parking.

26. If the Claimant now attempts to characterise the alleged contravention as prohibited stopping rather than prohibited parking, that would be materially different from the case actually pleaded.

CONSIDERATION PERIOD AND DE MINIMIS DURATION

27. Further and in the alternative, a period of approximately 65 seconds is substantially shorter than the consideration period ordinarily applicable before a parking contract can be treated as having been accepted.

28. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the consideration period registered and applicable to this particular site and restriction at the material time and of any lawful basis upon which it contends that the consideration period had already ended within approximately 65 seconds.

29. In any event, the exceptionally brief duration is de minimis and further supports the Defendant's case that this was a temporary loading operation rather than a parking event.

PROHIBITIVE TERMS AND ABSENCE OF CONTRACTUAL OFFER

30. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the exact wording of the signage governing the precise location concerned.

31. If the signage stated that parking was not permitted in that area, the Defendant denies that such prohibitive wording constituted an offer to park capable of acceptance. A prohibition against parking does not, without more, amount to a contractual offer permitting the prohibited activity in return for payment of a parking charge.

32. The Claimant must therefore establish the precise contractual offer allegedly made, how it was capable of acceptance, and the precise term allegedly breached. Those matters are not pleaded in the Particulars of Claim.

EQUALITY ACT 2010

33. The circumstances additionally involved a disabled Blue Badge holder and the loading or unloading of heavy goods.

34. The Defendant relies upon the duties arising under sections 20 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010 and puts the Claimant to strict proof that appropriate consideration was given to the disability-related circumstances and any reasonable adjustment required before imposing a parking charge for an activity lasting approximately 65 seconds.

35. The Defendant does not contend that possession of a Blue Badge creates an unrestricted entitlement to park on private land. The issue is whether the Claimant acted lawfully in enforcing the alleged restriction without reasonable adjustment for the disability-related circumstances of the exceptionally brief loading operation.

ADDITIONAL £70

36. The Particulars claim £170 described merely as "the total of the PC and damages". The underlying parking charge was £100. No proper explanation or calculation of the additional £70 is pleaded.

37. The Defendant denies that the additional £70 is recoverable and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the contractual term said to authorise it, when and how that additional liability arose, and what loss or service the purported damages represent.

38. Further, insofar as the Claimant relies upon Schedule 4 PoFA against the Defendant as keeper, paragraph 4(5) provides that the maximum sum recoverable from a keeper by virtue of that statutory liability is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper.

CLAIMANT'S AUTHORITY

39. The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the material time it had sufficient authority from the landowner to manage the precise area concerned, impose the particular restriction relied upon, recover parking charges in its own name and institute legal proceedings in respect of those charges.

You are not counterclaiming. You are ONLY defending the claim. Once submitted, you are then waiting for the Claimant to acknowledge the defence and then you will be sent an N180 Directions Questionnaire where you will be able to select your local county court and give any dates you would not be available to attend a hearing. You will also be asked the same for any unavailable dates for a pointless and time wasting "mediation phone call' I will cover that later, once you receive a date for it.

[rhbmcse]

@b789

Thanks you so much for this.
Unfortunately, the MCOL page restricts the width of text to 63 chars and therefore the text is way too long to paste.

I have asked AI to truncate and it came back with the below.  Is this sufficient ? -  and sorry to be a pain.


1. The Defendant denies liability to the Claimant in full.

PRELIMINARY MATTER – DEFICIENT PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
2. The Particulars fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16.
They fail to properly plead the contractual cause of action.
3. The Claimant pleads breach of "terms on signs (the
contract)" for "Parked In An Area Where No Parking Is
Allowed." It fails to specify the exact terms, obligations,
or acts of acceptance relied upon.
4. CPR 16.4 requires a concise statement of facts. PD 16
para 7.5 requires conduct establishing an agreement to be
explicitly detailed.
5. Per Liberty Homes v Rajakanthan [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC),
it is implicit that Particulars must set out whether an
agreement is oral, written, or by conduct.
6. Under PD 7C para 5.2, detailed Particulars must be inside
the claim form or served separately with an express notice
stating "detailed particulars of claim will follow". No
such statement was included.
7. Having elected to embed its Particulars, character limit
constraints do not excuse deficient pleading. The Court is
invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4 or require
formal amendment.

NO LIABILITY AS DRIVER OR KEEPER
8. The Defendant was the registered keeper and has never
identified the driver.
9. Registered keeper status creates no presumption as to who
was driving. The Claimant is put to strict proof thereof.
10. The Defendant had no obligation to identify the driver.
Keeper liability relies solely on strict compliance with
Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA").

FAILURE TO ESTABLISH KEEPER LIABILITY UNDER POFA
11. The event occurred on 17/10/2025. No Notice to Driver was
issued; para 9 of Schedule 4 applied.
12. The Notice to Keeper was issued on 25/10/2025 but received
on 07/11/2025. The mandatory 14-day delivery period under
paras 9(4)-(5) expired on 31/10/2025.
13. The statutory presumption of delivery (para 9(6)) relies
on the actual date of posting, not the issue date printed on
the notice.
14. The Claimant failed to produce postal dispatch records or
proof of posting entering the mail system. Absent proof of
timely delivery, keeper liability under PoFA is unproven.

THE VEHICLE WAS NOT PARKED
15. The vehicle was stationary for ~65 seconds solely to
load/unload pre-ordered heavy goods. It was not parked.
16. Per Jopson v Homeguard Services [2016] B9GF0A9E, temporary
stopping for loading/unloading is distinct from parking.

CONSIDERATION PERIOD AND DE MINIMIS DURATION
17. A period of ~65 seconds is insufficient to form a
contract by conduct and is de minimis. The Claimant is put
to strict proof of its registered consideration period.

PROHIBITIVE TERMS AND ABSENCE OF CONTRACTUAL OFFER
18. If signage prohibited parking entirely, it was a
prohibition, not a contractual offer capable of acceptance.

EQUALITY ACT 2010
19. The event involved a Blue Badge holder loading heavy
goods. The Claimant is put to proof that it complied with
sections 20 & 29 Equality Act 2010 regarding reasonable
adjustments.

ADDITIONAL £70 AND LANDOWNER AUTHORITY
20. The claim includes £70 "damages". Under PoFA para 4(5),
recovery from a keeper cannot exceed the original Notice sum.
21. The Claimant is put to strict proof of contractual authority
from the landowner to manage the land and issue proceedings.

[b789]

I'm finding that unusual. Can you show mw a screenshot of where it shows you restricted to 63 characters per line? At 65 characters per line, it is still only 97 lines long. The previous limit was 122 lines, so well within that limit.

They are updating the antiquated system and for new claims that I have submitted (not parking) recently have no limit when using MCOL.

[rhbmcse]

Unless I'm misunderstanding - which is entirely both possible and probable !!!

@b789

Please see attachment..

Br,

Rob.

[b789]

Even at 66 characters per line, including spaces, punctuation and line breaks, what I provided is only 92 lines. So something is wrong with their system.

The defence I provided is 3,305 characters, 545 words and 92 lines at 66 characters per line (max). Well below any 122 line limit.

Can you please try again as it does not make sense. There is no mad rush to get this submitted as you have until 4pm Monday 24th August to submit your defence and you can extend that by another 14 days if you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS).

[rhbmcse]

I'm finding that unusual. Can you show mw a screenshot of where it shows you restricted to 63 characters per line? At 65 characters per line, it is still only 97 lines long. The previous limit was 122 lines, so well within that limit.

They are updating the antiquated system and for new claims that I have submitted (not parking) recently have no limit when using MCOL.

I'll certainly try.  This will be the fourth time I've tried it though. Every time with the same result...

[b789]

I suggest you try and contact MCOL and ask them what the hell is going on.

Here is the screenshot of the original defence I gave you, wrapped at 67 characters per line (in spaces and punctuation) which clearly shows 97 lines (inc empty lines).

[b789]

@rhbmcse, I have no idea what is going on. However, I have edited the defence and it should now fit. Please let me know how you get on.

PRELIMINARY MATTER – DEFICIENT PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety and denies that any debt is owed.

2. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail adequately to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 (PD16). Although a date, location and generic contravention are given, the Claimant has not properly pleaded the contractual cause of action.

3. The PoC merely allege breach of "the terms on the signs (the contract)" and "Parked In An Area Where No Parking Is Allowed". They do not identify the precise contractual term relied upon, the obligation allegedly breached or the conduct said to constitute acceptance.

4. CPR 16.4 requires a concise statement of the facts relied upon. PD16 para 7.5 requires conduct relied upon to form an agreement by conduct to be specified. In Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC), Jefford J held at para 42 that PoC must identify whether an agreement is oral, written, by conduct or some combination.

5. Practice Direction 7C (PD7C) para 5.2 allowed the Claimant either to include detailed PoC in the online claim form or state that "detailed particulars of claim will follow" and serve them separately. It did not do so and elected to rely upon the PoC in the claim form.

6. The online character limit does not excuse deficient pleading. The Claimant chose not to use the procedure for separate detailed PoC. The Court is invited to consider strike-out under CPR 3.4 or, alternatively, require proper amendment with permission for the Defendant to amend the Defence.

NO LIABILITY AS DRIVER OR KEEPER

7. The Defendant was the registered keeper but has never admitted to being the driver or identified the driver to the Claimant.

8. The PoC pursue the Defendant as driver and alternatively as keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sch 4 (PoFA). The Claimant cannot categorically identify the Defendant as driver and pleads no fact establishing that the Defendant was driving. Keeper status does not identify the driver.

9. The Defendant was under no legal obligation to identify the driver to a private parking operator. PoFA provides the statutory mechanism for keeper liability, subject to strict compliance. The Defendant's decision not to identify the driver cannot cure any failure to comply with PoFA.

FAILURE TO ESTABLISH KEEPER LIABILITY

10. The alleged event was on 17 October 2025. No Notice to Driver having been given, PoFA para 9 applied. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is dated 25 October 2025 but was not received until 7 November 2025.

11. PoFA paras 9(4) and 9(5) required delivery by 31 October 2025. Para 9(6) presumes delivery on the second working day after posting unless the contrary is proved. That presumption depends on the actual posting date, not the date printed on the NtK.

12. During the appeal the Claimant was expressly required to prove when the NtK entered the postal system but failed to do so. Its Accredited Trade Association Code requires a record of the posting date, including when any mail consolidator actually placed the notice into the postal system.

13. The Claimant is put to strict proof, by contemporaneous dispatch, proof of posting, mail consolidator or equivalent records, of the actual posting date. The printed issue date is not proof of posting on that date. Absent such evidence, especially where delivery was on 7 November 2025, keeper liability is not established.

THE VEHICLE WAS NOT PARKED

14. Further and alternatively, the vehicle was stationary for about 65 seconds solely for loading/unloading pre-ordered heavy goods. It was not parked.

15. The Defendant relies on Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, where HHJ Harris QC distinguished parking from temporary stopping for loading/unloading. The Claimant pleads that the vehicle was "Parked". A 65-second loading operation is materially different. Any attempt to recast the allegation as prohibited stopping would differ from the pleaded case.

CONSIDERATION/PROHIBITIVE TERMS

16. About 65 seconds is substantially shorter than any reasonable consideration period. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the period applicable to this site and any basis for saying it expired within 65 seconds. The duration is also de minimis and supports the case that this was loading, not parking.

17. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the exact wording and location of the signage. If parking was prohibited, such wording did not, without more, constitute an offer permitting the prohibited act for a charge. The Claimant must establish the offer, acceptance and precise term allegedly breached, none of which is pleaded.

EQUALITY ACT 2010

18. The circumstances involved a disabled Blue Badge holder loading/unloading heavy goods. The Defendant relies upon ss.20 and 29 Equality Act 2010 and puts the Claimant to strict proof that any reasonable adjustment required by the disability-related circumstances was considered before enforcing a charge for an activity lasting about 65 seconds.

19. The Defendant does not contend that a Blue Badge creates an unrestricted right to park on private land. The issue is whether the alleged restriction was lawfully enforced without reasonable adjustment.

ADDITIONAL £70

20. The PoC claim £170 as "the total of the PC and damages". The parking charge was £100. No proper basis or calculation for the additional £70 is pleaded. The Defendant denies it is recoverable and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the contractual term authorising it and what loss or service it represents.

21. Further, insofar as PoFA is relied upon against the keeper, para 4(5) limits the sum recoverable by virtue of keeper liability to the amount specified in the NtK.

CLAIMANT'S AUTHORITY

22. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it had sufficient landowner authority to manage the precise area, impose the restriction relied upon, recover charges in its own name and institute proceedings.

[rhbmcse]

Wow - It still didn't fit, but with removing the lines stating each category of defence, it fitted with one line spare!!!

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety and denies that 
any debt is owed.

2. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail adequately to comply with 
CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 (PD16). Although a date, 
location and generic contravention are given, the Claimant has not 
properly pleaded the contractual cause of action.

3. The PoC merely allege breach of "the terms on the signs (the 
contract)" and "Parked In An Area Where No Parking Is Allowed". 
They do not identify the precise contractual term relied upon, the 
obligation allegedly breached or the conduct said to constitute 
acceptance.

4. CPR 16.4 requires a concise statement of the facts relied upon. 
PD16 para 7.5 requires conduct relied upon to form an agreement by 
conduct to be specified. In Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan 
& Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC), Jefford J held at para 42 that PoC 
must identify whether an agreement is oral, written, by conduct or 
some combination.

5. Practice Direction 7C (PD7C) para 5.2 allowed the Claimant 
either to include detailed PoC in the online claim form or state 
that "detailed particulars of claim will follow" and serve them 
separately. It did not do so and elected to rely upon the PoC in 
the claim form.

6. The online character limit does not excuse deficient pleading. 
The Claimant chose not to use the procedure for separate detailed 
PoC. The Court is invited to consider strike-out under CPR 3.4 or, 
alternatively, require proper amendment with permission for the 
Defendant to amend the Defence.

7. The Defendant was the registered keeper but has never admitted 
to being the driver or identified the driver to the Claimant.

8. The PoC pursue the Defendant as driver and alternatively as 
keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sch 4 (PoFA). 
The Claimant cannot categorically identify the Defendant as driver 
and pleads no fact establishing that the Defendant was driving. 
Keeper status does not identify the driver.

9. The Defendant was under no legal obligation to identify the 
driver to a private parking operator. PoFA provides the statutory 
mechanism for keeper liability, subject to strict compliance. The 
Defendant's decision not to identify the driver cannot cure any 
failure to comply with PoFA.

10. The alleged event was on 17 October 2025. No Notice to Driver 
having been given, PoFA para 9 applied. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) 
is dated 25 October 2025 but was not received until 7 November 
2025.

11. PoFA paras 9(4) and 9(5) required delivery by 31 October 2025. 
Para 9(6) presumes delivery on the second working day after 
posting unless the contrary is proved. That presumption depends on 
the actual posting date, not the date printed on the NtK.

12. During the appeal the Claimant was expressly required to prove 
when the NtK entered the postal system but failed to do so. Its 
Accredited Trade Association Code requires a record of the posting 
date, including when any mail consolidator actually placed the 
notice into the postal system.

13. The Claimant is put to strict proof, by contemporaneous 
dispatch, proof of posting, mail consolidator or equivalent 
records, of the actual posting date. The printed issue date is not 
proof of posting on that date. Absent such evidence, especially 
where delivery was on 7 November 2025, keeper liability is not 
established.

14. Further and alternatively, the vehicle was stationary for 
about 65 seconds solely for loading/unloading pre-ordered heavy 
goods. It was not parked.

15. The Defendant relies on Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] 
B9GF0A9E, where HHJ Harris QC distinguished parking from temporary 
stopping for loading/unloading. The Claimant pleads that the 
vehicle was "Parked". A 65-second loading operation is materially 
different. Any attempt to recast the allegation as prohibited 
stopping would differ from the pleaded case.

16. About 65 seconds is substantially shorter than any reasonable 
consideration period. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the 
period applicable to this site and any basis for saying it expired 
within 65 seconds. The duration is also de minimis and supports 
the case that this was loading, not parking.

17. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the exact wording and 
location of the signage. If parking was prohibited, such wording 
did not, without more, constitute an offer permitting the 
prohibited act for a charge. The Claimant must establish the 
offer, acceptance and precise term allegedly breached, none of 
which is pleaded.

18. The circumstances involved a disabled Blue Badge holder 
loading/unloading heavy goods. The Defendant relies upon ss.20 and 
29 Equality Act 2010 and puts the Claimant to strict proof that 
any reasonable adjustment required by the disability-related 
circumstances was considered before enforcing a charge for an 
activity lasting about 65 seconds.

19. The Defendant does not contend that a Blue Badge creates an 
unrestricted right to park on private land. The issue is whether 
the alleged restriction was lawfully enforced without reasonable 
adjustment.

20. The PoC claim £170 as "the total of the PC and damages". The 
parking charge was £100. No proper basis or calculation for the 
additional £70 is pleaded. The Defendant denies it is recoverable 
and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the contractual term 
authorising it and what loss or service it represents.

21. Further, insofar as PoFA is relied upon against the keeper, 
para 4(5) limits the sum recoverable by virtue of keeper liability 
to the amount specified in the NtK.

22. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it had sufficient 
landowner authority to manage the precise area, impose 
the restriction relied upon, recover charges in its own name and 
institute proceedings.

I have submitted as above and...we shall wait and see.

Thank you again.

Br,

Rob.

---

The following errors have occurred:

This field has invalid character. You cannot use < > "

Wow - I mean Wow.  How hard do they want to make this... ???

So I can't use  < > "

Guess I'll go back and edit it again... Jeez...