dx, As requested:
Queries are made in red.
Date of Statement: xx December 2019
Claim Number: XXXXXX
Between: UK CAR Park Management Limited and XXXXXXX
1. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXX XXX.
2. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC  UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. How do I check who the landowner is?
3. If there was a contract, it is denied that the parking charge is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking  2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not incorporated into the contract because [explain] – I assumed this means no contract was agreed?
4. The amount is a penalty, and the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:-
a) The Claimant has no commercial justification
b) The Claimant did not follow the BPA Code of Practice, allowing a MINIMUM grace period of 10 minutes.
c) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
d) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.
e) The Court of Appeal for the Beavis case made a clear reference to the fact that their decision was NOT relevant to pay-per-hour type car parks.
5. A parking ticket was purchased. However, after much difficulty. The Defendant made several attempts to initially pay for parking via telephone and the indicated telephone-based application, which were both declined by the claimant’s system of payment. The Defendant was attending a Drug and Alcohol (D&A) test based on the conditions of a new employer. The delay in obtaining a parking ticket caused significant delay. The Defendant was late to the appointment and was not permitted to leave the test until indicated by the examiner. Options made available to extend parking durations remotely did not function. Please refer to Attachment 1 – an email of complaint sent on the said day of apparent contravention (12th March 2018). My own wording. Is this ok?
6. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
The link given in my previous post has been updated. (ensure to have a good read and check the links given)
READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thomas-cook-information-for-customers-employees-creditors-and-shareholders
With sending a Subject Access Request (SAR) make sure and ask for 'ALL DATA' this covers everything no matter what format they hold that data in whether it be telephone recordings, emails, online etc.
Also make sure and specifically ask for the data they have removed from your online account
Don't touch them owe me £500 since January 2019 make excuse after excuse. Seem they always have software problems sending money out. Keep saying they will call back or email nothing been chasing it now for 6 mths the phone staff always have the same banter we will chase it up and get back to you then nothing!