Hi, this is my second draft, the first ended up the length of a novel so this time I’ll stick to the facts and keep the story simple.

I need some help with my next move.

1. I parked at ‘Promenade Car Park, Perranporth, as site managed by AS parking (Athens Security Services Ltd., Unit 1a Newquay Road, St Columb – IPC member/IPC accredited operator/BPA Member). I paid for a ticket and then went for a walk on the beach (see image 1).

2. I returned within the allotted time and found I had been issued a parking fine (see image 2).

3. I could see that my ticket had moved across my dashboard (windy day) and settled in the corner of the windscreen (see image 8). I could see that the ticket details were still visible from the drivers window if you looked carefully.

4. I wrote to AS Parking to say that I had paid for a ticket. I enclosed the ticket and stated that I understood that the ticket had moved but was still readable and that in providing the evidence that I would expect this to be an end of the matter. I took copies of the ticket and the fine in case things didn’t go my way – to my genuine surpise, things didn’t go my way.

5. I received this letter (image 4,5,6,7,8) saying that my evidence wasn’t satisfactory and that I must pay £60 now or £100 after fourteen days. Also that AS Parking’s appeal process was exhausted and that if I decided to take the matter further “...despite the compelling evidence” I could go through IAS.

I was surprised this didn’t close the matter and pretty peed off too. I bought a ticket, displayed it in good faith, it was readable from other angles and I had provided evidence. The tone of AS Parking’s letter was very withering and patronising and annoyed me further – a bit of googling and I found this forum which gave me some hope that I could fight back.

I have a couple of questions, the main one being
Q.1 – What should I do next
Q.2 – If I should appeal through IAS (I understood from reading this forum its a bit of a stitch up designed to help the Enforcers rather than the parking public)
Q.3 – Is POPLA a good route instead of IAS – no POPLA number on the letter sent by AS Parking though.

Thanks for your help, any advice gratefully received.
Bests,
Mallard

IMAGE 1 -

IMAGE 2

IMAGE 3

IMAGE 4

IMAGE 5

IMAGE 6

IMAGE 7

IMAGE 8

A S Parking not in POPLA . they in the not very independant parking scum. You cant pick POPLA . they dont offer it.

If you still have ticket that proves you paid for parking then it wont go to court,and if they foolish enough to try they would loose.

THEY ARE ALWAYS GOING TO DENY YOUR APPEAL. Its the only way they make money, by people paying up.

Keep all papers they send and ignore everything except court papers, which I dont think you will see.

You will see loads of debt collection letters.but ignore. They have no power

Thanks Doreen, I really appreciate your reply and reassurance. I sent the ticket to AS Parking but kept a photo copy of it and also took a picture of it attached to the letter - hopefully this covers me even though I dont have the original ticket anymore? Thanks again

It's compelling.

Sit tight. Anything from a debt collector - ignore. It's toilet paper

Letter before action OR a real court document, come back.

Thanks Nosferatu, much appreciated - I'll hang in there.

You could always write to the Perranporth Gardens Charity who hired ASP and explain the situation to them. Get them to get it cancelled.

Well – I thought I’d been let off by AS Parking (due to the fact that I sent them my valid ticket) but sadly a Final Notice arrived this morning requesting £100.

Thanks to everyone for their previous advice – which was to ignore AS’s correspondence; I thought I’d just check in with the good people of PEPIPOO to check that this is still the case.

Also , I have a couple of questions:
1. Can recovery begin before a court judgement?
2. Should I correspond to acknowledge receipt and to re-assert my initial stance (I have paid and have a ticket)
3. Should I be worried about this?

Thanks again all advice gratefully received.

1. 'Recovery'? In what sense?
2. You could do, but unlikely to change a thing. Presumably you sent a copy of the purchased ticket, not the original?
3. No

If they initiate court proceedings (as per their 'Final Notice') you'll be their first!

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Athens_Security_Services.html

You could irritate them and write to thank them for their 'Final Notice', and as you're not going to pay them you therefore take it you will hear no more!

1. Can recovery begin before a court judgement?
They or their debt collectors can write letters asking for payment
They can't do anything else

2. Should I correspond to acknowledge receipt and to re-assert my initial stance (I have paid and have a ticket)

Dear Sir

Ref ***

Thank You for your letter dated ****

I deny any debt to your company for reasons that you already know

I note your intention to instruct your solicitor to commence court proceedings if a payment is not received.
He will require the full facts of the situation. Please ensure that, before taking legal action, he knows that you possess the payment ticket that I sent you to support my appeal.

As you will know, the court will want the original document to be produced at any hearing
If you do not attend the hearing yourselves, please also ensure that you pass it to the attending solicitor for presentation as I only possess my copy

Yours Faithfully

3. Should I be worried about this?
No

Thanks so much Gan & Ukomass,

I will take both of your advice and write - Gan I will use your template - brilliant.

Thanks again, this is such a great resource, your advice and reassurance is much appreciated.

Hi Again,

The saga continues this morning as I have received a solicitors letter (please see jpg) relating to my parking ticket. Just thought I'd check in to see if this is anything I should take action on?

It is asking me to respond with my version of events - I have concluded this is not one to ignore but wasn't sure of the best way to respond. I imagine there is plenty of scope to say the wrong thing here.

Is this typical procedure for a company such as AS parking?

Any advice gratefully received - thanks so much for help to date.

All the best,

Dave

We do not advise ignoring a LBC.

However, they are 'fishing'. You don't have to provide them any account of what happened. And asking to confirm the driver is OUTRAGEOUS. But unfortunately it appears your letter implied the driver which is a shame as they don't appear to rely upon (or have met) the conditions necessary under the Protection of Freedoms Act. You should have been advised not to use 'I' and 'the driver' instead.

Their client should have provided details and they should have advised on whether a claim was advisable. Of course, this doesn't appear to be how they operate.

The response should make it clear that a ticket was purchased and displayed, no breach occurred and no debt is liable. Any proceedings will be robustly defended and you will seek your costs should their claim fail. It might be worth also noting that ParkingEye v Beavis does not apply here.

Thanks very much JLC. I will reply to Gladstones with a letter as you suggest. Before I do, would you mind to clarify something - I just read up about Parking Eye VS Beavis - I wasn't sure what you meant about it not applying? Sorry, I'm slightly out of my depth. Thanks again.

The Private Parking Industry believes that ParkingEye v Beavis makes all parking tickets enforceable at all times.

Whilst it is true that some 'loss' arguments are resolved under certain situations, it most definitely isn't a panacea. Indeed, it actually works against them in some instances.

Simply, under certain circumstances (particularly clear signage and a genuine need to 'control' parking) that the charge is not a penalty and can be 'enforced' at court.

Here, there is most definitely a major disconnect between the alleged 'crime' and the 'charge'. Although, small claims is a lottery for both sides but the stakes aren't particularly high. The charge is to discourage people for parking without paying and ensure they leave within their allotted time and not a scheme to profit for minor things. Ok, there may be an 'admin' overhead for them to process but it is disproportionate - which is why it is sometimes worth making a reasonable offer (say £10-20) under without prejudice to settle the matter to at least make you look totallly reasonable if it gets as far as cost awards.

Thanks so much - I understand. I hope you don't mind me following with another question? I understand that the process of fishing is likely to continue for some time and that the letters will continue to ramp of the threat of court action unless I pay up. If you were to speculate, do you think this is likely to end up in court. I have no intention of paying as I'm in the right here, just wondered where this journey might end in your opinion. Many thanks.

Well in theory that's the LBCCC but it doesn't set out a cause of action. (But tells you want you must do [pay] and by when)

Others may be able to advise whether it is a 'debt collection' type letter or proceedings will follow. Read this though.

They are fishing for easy victims and fleshing out any claim. But a claim may well follow but they won't want to go as far as a hearing.

I couldnt open that letter for some reason. In case you get future deocuments, dont use the forum upload space, instead use tinypic or similar and copy the IMG tags - it then displays in the thread and is more likely to get peoples attention

As it is a LBA that unsurprisingly for Gladstones fails to mention a cause of action, it moost assuredly does not meet the practice directions on pre-action conduct; i.e. what both sides should do BEFORE getting to court. Any response should point this out AND state that once you recieve a properly compliant LBA you will be able to repsond further. Ask them to provide all documents their client will rely on, including signs, signage maps, payment records, contracts with the landholder giving them the necessary permission to offer parking contracts. Gladstones do NO diligence before issuing LBA or indee court papers, so the more hassle you cause now, the better.

Hi Nosferatu,

thanks for the heads-up on the upload - I have uploaded to tiny pic as you recommended, hopefully it's accessible now.



What I plan to do is to take a combination of yours and JLC's advice and state that 'the driver' will:

"make it clear that a ticket was purchased and displayed, no breach occurred and no debt is liable. Any proceedings will be robustly defended and you will seek your costs should their claim fail. It might be worth also noting that ParkingEye v Beavis does not apply here." (JLC)

and

"Ask them to provide all documents their client will rely on, including signs, signage maps, payment records, contracts with the landholder giving them the necessary permission to offer parking contracts" (Nosferatu)

The expected outcome will be that they will not wish spend time and energy on pursuing someone who is prepared to go to court?

Thanks again for your advice.

If only they did that. Don't underestimate the unfounded veracity they pursue some cases!

You misunderstand how Gladstones (well, most solicitors) makes money

They charge their client raes for providing the documents you request, etc. Those arent recoverable in small claims (unles you behave like an utter idiot) and so Gladstones get paid. Then, if they take you to court, even if they win Gladstones will charge at least £2-300 for just turning up - and again, those costs are very unlikely to be recovered.

Whatever happens, Gladstones wins. well until they lose sufficient cases that their clients stop transacting with them, but theyre all pretty stupid in PPC land, so that might take a while...

I see, thanks for explaining Nosferatu. So it will be in Gladstones interest to take me to court as it is a good earner whatever the outcome.

I hope not to go to court obviously but it seems like this is increasingly likely - which is I guess why people pay up at this point. I will send my rebuttal letter to Gladstones and await their response.

Thanks again all.

Gladstones dont take you to court. they must be instructed by their client to take you to court (they dont initiate, they carry out the request of their client) - but obviously they have a vested interest in persuading the PPC to do so.

If you put yourselves on the "too difficult" pile it may at least slow things down.

Make sure you put a deadline on the letter. Give them say 21 days to provied the informaiton AND the properly formatted letter, otherwise you will consider the matter closed.

Thanks, I'll do that. I will post my draft letter tonight if you wouldn't mind to review it?

All the best.

I'll try to but I'm out with a colleague for a meal. I am sure someone will be around.

Dont rush to send it, but dont miss their stupid deadlines either.

The key at all points is to appear reasonable and engaged in resolving the dispute. It looks good for a court

Make sure if you post it, you gte PROOF OF POSTING and 1st Class. NOT something else.

Hi there,

I have drafted the letter below, hopefully it's along the right lines? Any comments welcome.
I pinched a bit, but not all, of Parking Pranksters rebuttle text.

Dear Sir or Madam,
Thankyou for your letter dated xxx However your letter fails to mention a course of action and does not meet practice directions of pre-action conduct. I am advised that I should receive a properly compliant ‘Letter Before Action’ which should include all documents that your client will rely on including signs, signage maps, payment records, contracts with the landholder giving them necessary permission to offer parking contracts.

It is worth noting that I have already tried to resolve this matter with your client and have always responded promptly to all his correspondence. I would also like to make it clear that a ticket was purchased and displayed and as no breach occurred no debt is liable. Any proceedings will be robustly defended and I will seek costs* should your claim fail.
Please respond to this letter within 14 days of the date above or I will consider the matter closed.

* If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my costs from you.The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you hereby agree to pay these costs as liquidated damages when I prevail.

I also wondered about contacting the Charity That owns the land to see if they would see reason and help to overturn this (suggested by another forum member)

Cheers

No, the LBC does not have to include documents etc. but it does have to explain precisely why they would be starting a case against you.

That's the theory though there is a suspicion there is a Conditional Fee Arrangement in the MIL model. "I'll give you a quid, if I can take the case and keep the rest".

Cause of Action, not course.

Hi All,

I received a further letter form Gladstones today.

Please can any one advise me on the following:

1. Gladstones have responded to me well outside of the 21 days I gave them to respond. I said that if they did not respond in this timely fashion I would consider the matter closed - its about 20 days past that date, so is it closed?
2. Gladstones have not supplied any further/new information that AS Parking have not already supplied - ie no more detailed info about their ability to pursue me.
3. Gladstones say theat there previous letter was actually compliant - something that we (this forum) refuted.
4. How should I respond?

Many thanks all,

All the best,
Dave

Have a look at other Gladstones threads and respond robustly, even if you simply refute what they are saying. Do not leave the ball in their court.

Thanks School Run Mum - in fact I notice that another poster 'teepee' is having the exact same issue as me with AS and Gladstones. I will write back to Gladstones today with a similar defence. Thanks again - great forum : )

So they incurred 'damages' on the case?

Two way street.

Start recording your own time etc. as if they progress to hearing you'll be wanted to present your costs and push for 'unreasonable behaviour' too. Who says the ticket wasn't displayed?

I also used the following wording -

"You have failed to respond to my previous correspondence within the allotted time of 21 days. As clearly stated, after this time the matter would be considered closed. On this basis I now consider the matter closed.'

Worth a shot I suppose?

Yes. State you will consider any claim to be vexatious, as if they had a case they would have responded by now

Lost the failings of the pie letter. Make it explicit. You're writing this for the benefit of a court to show how Gladstones wilfully lie.

Hi All,



Thanks for all your help in getting me to this point. I was told not to underestimate how veracious some firms can be and I have now received the attached court claim form and over £200 fine.

On principle I do not want to pay the fine as I see this as an injustice - I had a ticket, I supplied it and therefore am not liable.
I have always responded promptly with the facts sent by recorded delivery.
I feel the process has been about trying to extract ever increasing amounts of money rather than establish my right to park.
I have what I believe to be my ace card - the ticket was actually visible from the drivers side window when viewed crouching. The evidence supplied by the Parking Comapny & the Solicitors actually supports this and I can demonstrate this fact through my own (re-constructed) photos. There was no incentive for the warden to see the ticket even though it was visible. I feel that this could be a robust line of defence.
The solicitors did not respond in a timely fashion - outside of the time frame I stipulated (21 days) so I wrote to them to acknowledge their letter and to let them know I considered the matter closed.

Obviously I wont ignore but how do I respond - can anyone help me with my next move.

1. Am I going to court?
2. Should I contact a solicitor for defence?
3. Does the lack of punctuality of the solicitors help me?
4. Does the lack of info provided by the solicitor help my case?
5. Does the fact that I can demonstrate that the ticket was visible help me?
6. Any suggestions

Thanks all

1.Possibly - assume this might go to a hearing. (But lots of procedural stuff first to trip over - but this is a civil claim so no wigs and stuff)
2.Nope unless you have money to burn as you are unlikely to recover the costs.
3.Possibly, but not fatally.
4.As 3.
5.Of course!!!!

Remember this is a sausage machine and generally issue claims to get you to fold and pay. I'd say this case is unlikely to get as far as a hearing but be prepared for one - attendance alone is a must. Keep track of your time to claim your costs should you win later.

Acknowledge the claim and start pulling together the planks of your defence. Submit part 18 requests now too - on the basis on continuing their 'unhelpfulness' to resolve matters without a hearing.

Not sure if you've seen this?

Thanks JLC, I really appreciate the reply. I'm finding this quite stressful but feel I couldn't live with myself (figure of speech) if I paid the fine because of the principle of the matter.

Some other things I am concerned about are:

1. If I am unsuccessful in my defence will this harm my ability to get credit/re-mortgage even if I were to pay the fine at the end of an unsuccessful hearing.
2. The Court that issued the documents is not local - will the hearing be nearby or will I travel to Northahampton even though the wrongly alleged offence took place in Cornwall.
3. Should I make a counter claim at this stage or simply refute their claim.

Thanks again.

...just checking out the Parking Prankster now - cheers



Note - I live in cornwall where the incicdent occured.

1.If you lost it, will only be an issue if you do not pay promptly.
2.Northampton is the processing centre. Any hearing will be at your local court.
3.No counterclaim - simply refuting all of the claim.



He he, it's a fairly simple civil matter over a 'contract dispute'. Not life changing either way... If the court ultimately decides you must pay it then do so and move on...


Well I suppose that increases the chances on someone attending... But I wouldn't let that perturb you right now.

Thanks JLC - you're right of course, pay and move on if it comes to it one thing to check though, would I only pay the fine (£230) or would I also be liable for thousands of pounds of costs for the other party on top?

Cheers

Small Claims is designed to settle disputes without the need for solicitors

It achieves this quite simply - except for the £50 to prepare a claim, their costs can't be claimed

All you're in the frame for in addition to the claim is travel costs and £90 if somebody takes a day off to attend

Indeed, possibly a bit of a lottery - for both sides. The key is to have a well prepared and structured defence and to attend. Remember you are a litigant in person...

Thanks All - great advice, feeling much reassured. Will prepare my defence and let you know how the situation develops.

One more question if that's okay? - If the other side decide to pull out before court will I be informed or would they just not show (as per JLC's link to Parking Prankster)?

Is it appropriate to post my defence here for scrutiny and feedback?

Absolutely post here.

If they discontinue properly you get a notice from the court. Believe nothing else.

Gladstones like to pull a trick at the "directions" (where a claim should be heard and dates you can't make ) stage, with a "psecial direction". Once your defence is posted here , have a read up on "relatively straightforward " to understand what Gladstones like to do.

Hi All I have I have posted my acknowledgement of service. I am now working on my defence documents. I have decided to add as much detail at this stage so I am adding multiple pages to my counterclaim document as per the attached. I would appreciate any feedback on all of it. Pretty much all of my defence is contained on the attached jpgs but I have included below how I intend to fill out the form below.
It reads like its written by a layperson because I am one : ) I have resisted copying and pasting some generic text as it’s not always something I understand – is this a good idea? I previously rebutted solicitors on ‘pre-court protocol’ but I am not an expert in this matter. I thought I remember reading somewhere that at this stage the claim should appear more personal? Does this sound right?

Nosferatu – thanks for your suggestion, I wasn’t aware of Gladstone’s ‘Special Direction’ or ‘Relatively Straightforward’ – I searched the forum but couldn’t spot it, please could I have a link to read more?

Thanks again : )

1. I am disputing the full amount claimed
2. I do not dispute this calim because I have paid it
3. Defence – please see attached JPGs
4. I do not wish to make a counter claim
5. Signature etc.
Note – I will unblank all my details for actual defence submission.
All the best, Mallard

I suppose the point to pick up on is the statement in the PCN about 'Not displaying a valid ticket for inspection'. On the signage at the ticket machine or elsewhere does it define where and how the ticket should be placed, e.g 'stuck to the windscreen'. If not then it's worth arguing the 'for inspection' point. If it could be read, even if it meant bending down or looking from the rear window, then it's capable of being inspected even though that may not be as easy as a ticket on the dash.

You cannot put evidence in this stage. You are submitting the legal argument s that support your case. You also have a typo in your very first sentence!

Have a look for "Gan generic defence", or the other defences on here, to see the LAYOUT - for example having a summary of the main points at the top

Okay - looks like I got this wrong initially. Thanks Nosferatu for steering me in the right direction. I have found a similar case at the same car-park (Perranporth) and used some of the text and tailored it to my situation. I particularly need help with point 7. I would like to say that I am not liable for the damages ( I'd also like to expose Gladstones for poor use of grammar - although that is the least of my worries). Any feedback much appreciated. Also my main defence is that I had a ticket and it was displayed - although I have buried this way down in point 8c - should I bring this up the list as it is the mainstay of my defence?

Draft Defence

I am XXXX of XXXXXX defendant in this matter.

The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.


1. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It states “settlement of parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. It does not include sufficient information to be considered a fair exchange of information.

2. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A)

3. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

4. The Notice To Keeper/Final notice fails to meet the terms and conditions as described in the Protection of Freedoms Acts 2012 and therefore as keeper I cannot be liable.

5. The claimant has no locus standi to bring this to case. It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Athens Security Services.

6. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies
i. The claimants charges are unlawful as they breach the terms in
the Consumer Rights Act 2015 specifically section 62(1) Schedule 2.

7. The claimant has produced a figure of £150. This is explained as “for have (sic) the privilege to park otherwise than in accordance than the signs at the site. The further £50 was for our clients damages ie. Time and resources spent on the case”. The defendant is not liable for these damages.
8. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location nor circumstances.

8a. The car park in question is a paid car park rather than a free car park as in the Beavis case and therefore the cases cannot be compared.

8b. Furthermore there is no legitimate interest in enforcing a charge as this is a public beach car park not allocated to any retail stores.

8c. The driver had paid to be in the car park and whereby paying the vehicle is fully entitled to be there.

9. The driver had displayed the ticket for inspection.
9b. The driver had not overstayed and the ticket was valid at time of inspection.

10. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.
of success.

11. In view of the above points the defendant would to invite the court to strike out the claim on the grounds of no want of cause nor prospect of success..

12.The defendant believes all statements in this defence to be true.


Cheers

I would reword #3 and combine it with the point in #1 about the inadequate particulars of Claim

I'd leave out #4 because you've admitted you were the driver

As you say, make #8 much more prominent

As a suggestion :

I am XXXX of XXXXXX defendant in this matter.

The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.

1. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It states “settlement of parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. It does not include sufficient information to prepare a specific defence. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details and the Defendant has the reasonable belief that this is the reason for the sparse Particulars of Claim.

2. Notwithstanding that the Claimant has disclosed no cause of action, the Claimant's original parking notice stated that no parking ticket was displayed. The defendant denies the allegation absolutely and asserts that the driver not only paid for the parking but the unexpired ticket is visible in the Claimant's own photographs.

3. The defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The claimant has failed to establish its legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Athens Security Services.

4 The claimant has produced a figure of £150. This is explained as “for have (sic) the privilege to park otherwise than in accordance than the signs at the site. The further £50 was for our clients damages ie. Time and resources spent on the case”. Notwithstanding that he denies any payment is due the Defendant has the reasonable belief that the additional sum is simply a number made up out of thin air, and an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant. The "time and resources" spent by Claimant are staff employed performing their normal duties for the express purpose of operating its business model and whose cost would have been incurred if the vehicle had never been present.

5 The Claimants charges are unlawful as in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 specifically section 62(1) Schedule 2.

6. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') and assert that the penalty has been disengaged.
The Defendant asserts that a number of the conditions stated by the court to disengage the penalty have not been met

The car park in question is a paid car park rather than a free car park. The Appeal Court in Beavis specifically stated the penalty cannot be disengaged at all in this situation.
The Supreme Court did not contradict the statement and it therefore stands.
The amount demanded not only greatly exceeds the Beavis sum that the court was prepared to accept but also £135 that ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores stated would definitely be a penalty and not recoverable.

7 To remove any doubt, the Defendant asserts that the driver had paid to be in the car park and displayed a valid ticket that had not expired and was visible when the Claimant's operative inspected the vehicle.
The driver fully met the terms and conditions of parking. The failure (that is denied) to display a parking ticket is the only breach of a term or condition that the Claimant has ever mentioned.

8 The Defendant has shown a copy of the ticket to the Claimant, that has not disputed that the ticket was valid.
The Defendant has also drawn the attention of the Claimant to the ticket in its photographs
The legal action by the defendant is vexatious and an abuse of the court process.
The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has no intention to pursue the matter to a hearing and has issued the claim for no other purpose than to so alarm the Defendant that he will make a payment that is not owed.

9. The defendant invites the court to strike out the claim on the grounds of no cause of action nor prospect of success and to have regard to the Claimant's conduct when it disposes of the costs of the case.

10.The defendant believes all statements in this defence to be true