G24 Court Claim Defeated — POFA and Contract Law Defence

When a private parking operator takes you to county court, it can feel overwhelming. But as this real case demonstrates, a well-prepared defence citing the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and established case law can expose the fundamental weaknesses in an operator’s claim — often resulting in the case being dropped entirely.

The Claim

A motorist received a county court claim from G24, a private parking operator. The claim alleged that the motorist had breached the terms and conditions displayed at a private car park and demanded payment of the original charge plus court costs.

Rather than ignoring the claim or paying up, the motorist filed a comprehensive defence — and it is a masterclass in how to challenge a private parking court claim.

The Defence: Five Pillars

The defence was built on five distinct legal arguments, each of which placed the burden of proof squarely back on G24.

1. No Contract Was Entered

The defence challenged the very foundation of the claim: that a binding contract existed between the motorist and the operator. For a contract to exist, there must be a clear offer, acceptance, and consideration. The motorist argued that simply parking a vehicle does not automatically constitute acceptance of terms — particularly where signage is inadequate or ambiguous.

The defence requested that G24 produce evidence of the exact signage displayed on the date of the alleged contravention, including photographs with timestamps proving the signs were visible and legible.

2. POFA 2012 Non-Compliance

This was the centrepiece of the defence. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a private parking operator must follow strict procedural requirements before pursuing the registered keeper of a vehicle. The defence argued that:

• The original notice did not mention POFA 2012 or the operator’s reliance on it
• The Notice to Keeper was issued outside the mandatory 14-day window prescribed by POFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9
• No specific period of parking was stated on the notice, which is a required element under POFA

If any one of these requirements is not met, the operator loses the right to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. Since the operator obtained the keeper’s details from the DVLA, they were pursuing the keeper — and POFA compliance was therefore essential to their claim.

3. Request for Evidence

The defence made a series of specific disclosure requests that operators frequently struggle to satisfy:

• Proof of landowner authorisation — evidence that G24 had a valid contract with the landowner granting them authority to issue charges and pursue court claims
• Signage photographs — timestamped images showing all signs at the location on the relevant date
• ANPR data — the raw automatic number plate recognition data showing entry and exit times
• DVLA request copy — evidence that the operator followed the correct DVLA process to obtain keeper details, including the reason code used

Each of these requests targeted a common area where operators fail to maintain adequate records.

4. Excel Parking v Lamoureux [2016]

The defence cited the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Lamoureux [2016], a significant county court judgment that established an important principle: the registered keeper of a vehicle is not automatically presumed to be the driver.

This is critical because POFA 2012 creates a specific statutory mechanism for transferring liability to the keeper — but only if the operator has followed all the procedural requirements. If the operator cannot prove POFA compliance, they must prove who was actually driving. And in many cases, they simply cannot do that.

5. The Charge Is a Penalty

Finally, the defence argued that the amount claimed was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss but rather a punitive penalty designed to deter motorists. Under the principle established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015], while the Supreme Court upheld certain parking charges, they also confirmed that any charge must be proportionate and serve a legitimate interest. The defence challenged G24 to demonstrate its actual loss arising from the alleged parking event.

The Outcome

Operators like G24 pursue thousands of county court claims each year. However, when faced with a robust, well-researched defence that demands evidence they often do not possess, many operators choose to discontinue the claim rather than risk an unfavourable judgment.

The key lesson from this case is clear: operators frequently cannot produce the evidence they need at court. They rely on motorists being intimidated by the legal process and either not responding or not knowing how to defend themselves.

What You Can Learn From This Case

If you receive a county court claim from a private parking operator, consider the following:

• Do not ignore it. A county court claim requires a response within 14 days (or 28 days if you request an extension). Failure to respond results in a default judgment against you.
• Check POFA compliance. Was the Notice to Keeper issued within 14 days? Does it contain all required information? Was POFA mentioned on the original notice?
• Request evidence. Ask for landowner authorisation, signage photos, ANPR data, and the DVLA request. Operators must prove their case — you do not have to prove your innocence.
• Check the timeline. There are strict limitation periods and procedural windows. Any failure to comply weakens the operator’s position significantly.
• Cite relevant case law. Cases like Excel v Lamoureux and ParkingEye v Beavis provide established legal principles that support motorists’ defences.

Do Not Face a Court Claim Alone

A county court claim is serious, but it is not a criminal matter — it is a civil dispute, and the operator bears the burden of proving their case on the balance of probabilities. A well-prepared defence that challenges POFA compliance and demands proper evidence can be highly effective.

Upload your parking charge to Parking Mate AI and we’ll check it for free.