As previously stated, all other documentation aside from the original windscreen ticket has been disposed of. Mainly because I was told to disregard the fine by Waitrose staff.

REVISED BELOW. THANK YOU @dx100uk and @brassnecked

I have shortened the defence to the bare minimum, below. SAR not yet submitted but it can be today. Waitrose head office initially indicated last week that they would cancel the ticket, but that's not now the case due to UKPC no longer operating the car park. I've actually read a lot of threads on this subject on this and other forums. The advice i am reading obviously varies. DEFENCE. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term, and it is denied that this Claimant has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars. The facts as known to the Defendant: 2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 1. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. The claimant has yet to see evidence of their contract with the landowner. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 4. There are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.

Hi @honeybee13 Yes the AoS was submitted via Moneyclaim 10 days ago.

Thanks Nicky - my defence is written (see below). What I meant is does the lack of photos of the signs affect how I defend. 1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term, and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars. The facts as known to the Defendant: 2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 3. The Driver was a customer at the Waitrose store within the retail park and did shopping there. The Claimant says the Defendant is indebted to a Parking Charge yet there are no charges to use this car park and payment is not required. The Claimant states the vehicle in question was parked in breach of the terms on C’s signs (the contract) yet no evidence is supplied as to what the breach is or the terms and conditions are which are displayed on the signs. As stated in point 5, this amounts to a failure to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”. 4. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle. 5. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”. 6. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued. 7. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum. 8. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form. The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity. The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3 9. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'" 10. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either. 11. In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out.

Update: I have complained to Waitrose head office. They were very helpful but say they cannot cancel the ticket because UKPC no longer own the car park where the PCN was issued so they can no longer action a cancellation. this also means there are no longer UKPC signs in the car park which I can photograph. should I just file a defence regardless of this? I need to do this by Monday 3 July so keen to crack on.

Oh dear… is this my key argument when I write my defence? (Aside from being told by Waitrose staff to ignore the ticket!?)

Issue time 11.22am Time first seen 11.22am Sorry, I thought this would be revealing my identity to my persecutors if they read these forums! Haha.

1 The date of infringement?24/6/22 2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] No Have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days] yes, date unknown. Threw away Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? yes 3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?] don’t know 5 Who is the parking company? UKPC 6. Where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? Waitrose, Capitol Centre, Capitol Way, Walton le Dale, Preston, Lancs For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. BPA 2022-06-24 UKPC Windscreen ticket.pdf

Thank you. Correct date noted. AOS lodged on the Govt website. Do I also need to submit a CCA request to the claimant/solicitor or is this not required?

Which Court have you received the claim from ? COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE, NORTHAMPTON, NN1 2LH Name of the Claimant : UK PARKING CONTROL Claimants Solicitors: DCB LEGAL Date of issue – 30TH MAY 2023 Date for AOS - J Date to submit Defence - 30th june What is the claim for – 1. THE DEFENDANT (D) IS INDEBTED TO THE CLAIMANT (C) FOR A PARKING CHARGE (S) ISSUED TO VEHICLE XXXX AT CAPITOL LEISURE PARK, CAPITOL WAY, WALTON LE DALE, PR5 4AW 2. PCN DETAILS ARE 24/6/2022 XXXXXXXXXX 3. THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED IN BREACH OF TERMS OF THE TERMS ON C'S SIGNS (THE CONTRACT), THUS INCURRING THE PCN. 4. THE DRIVER AGREED TO PAY WITHIN 28 DAYS BUT DID NOT. D IS LIABLE AS THE DRIVER OR KEEPER. DESPITE REQUESTS THE PCN IS OUTSTANDING. THE CONTRACT ENTITLES C TO DAMAGES. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £170 BEING THE TOTAL OF THE PCN AND DAMAGES 2. INTEREST AT A RATE OF 8% PER ANNUM PURSUANT TO S.69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 FROM THE DATE HEREOF AT A DAILY RATE OF £0.02 UNTIL JUDGEMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT. 3 COSTS AND COURT FEES What is the value of the claim? Amount Claimed £182.32 court fees £35.00 legal rep fees £50.00 Total Amount £267.32 Have you moved since the issuance of the PCN? (YES) Did you receive a letter of Claim With A reply Pack wanting I&E etc about 1mth before the claimform? NO AND NO ............................. Letter I received entitled CLAIM FORM in the NORTHAMPTON COURT BUSINESS COURT This relates to a PCN I received in June 2022 for parking slightly over the white line in a FREE Waitrose car park. I have already submitted an AoS at moneyclaim.gov.uk. I am posting this before I submit the CPR 31.14. I intend to use the template in this forum I parked over the line because as I pulled in to the bay, the man next to me was parked very close to his line and was opening his car doors to let his kids out so I wanted to give him room. I had to run in to use the loo as I had just driven a long way and was desperate! So I am being penalised for being courteous. I complained in store to Waitrose and was told by staff to ignore it. That wrong/over zealous PCNs were issued all the time and no action was ever taken. I have since moved home and am no longer the keeper of this vehicle. No correspondence or acknowledgment has ever been sent from myself. No charges have ever been agreed.