I got a ticket without ever entering a parking space or leaving my vehicle!

Coupon-mad

In most current defences v DCB Legal claims, paragraph 3 looks similar to the thread below by @shahib_02  ... just change the incident date:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

No need for more detail except in your case just add a couple of extra paragraphs to the Template Defence:

3.1.  Further, it is denied that the car was parked at all. Browncross car park winds around a piece of rough ground and in and out of some railway arches, and it was particularly difficult to drive around on that day, as the gaps between vehicles are barely wider than a car. It has lots of dead ends where you either have to reverse out, or complete a five-point-turn in order to continue to manoeuvre round the site. The Defendant did not know this car park, so - in a fruitless search for a space - they drove around each part, waiting briefly and looking to see if anyone left, then finally had to wait whilst another car entered, blocking the Defendant in and making it impossible to exit any quicker.

3.2.  The Defendant gained no amenity from the site and never entered a parking space, let alone got out of the vehicle nor had any opportunity to read and agree to any terms of a purported 'parking contract'. To be potentially bound by such terms, a car has to be parked, and it was not. There was no breach of a 'relevant obligation or relevant contract'. The Claimant knows that the Defendant did not park because they futilely appealed to Euro Car Parks, thinking it was an obvious case where the ticket was issued in error, but they refused to cancel it. Astonishingly, the same happened POPLA stage, which the Defendant has since discovered is funded by the parking industry themselves and appears primarily self-serving, and not fully impartial. 

4. Continue with the Template Defence. In total it will be about 30 paragraphs but PLEASE don't show us our the Template!

tegmim

How is this @coupon-mad ?

...However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle at the salient time.

3. The vehicle entered the carpark at Browncross street because the driver was seeking a place to park to attend an event, which ran from 9.30am to 1.30pm. She had won an award that was to be presented at the event. She was also due to be interviewed live on BBC radio at 11.15 that morning. However, she had been delayed by traffic and did not know the area, so she was trying to find a nearby place to park.

4.  The Defendant identified Browncross street carpark from Google Maps and drove to that location. She found the layout of the carpark confusing – the network of dead-ends is hard to navigate when looking for a space, and crosses back and forth from Browncross street carpark into the adjoining Spaw Street Car Park (which is run by another operating agent), without any clear differentiation between the two. Both are very poorly laid out, with very narrow access with poorly made up surfaces that mean a driver has to be very slow and careful, and then reverse out of dead-ends and around corners to rejoin the central roadway. Signage is small and poorly located with lots of small print. The Spaw Street element of the car parking winds in and out of railway arches, so that the potential parking areas are not visible without navigating around the entire site.

5. As a result, the Defendant drove in and out of the Browncross car parking area for some time. At one point she waited to see whether a man who was near to a vehicle was entering or leaving the parking space (however he transpired to be placing something in his car). After she realised that no spaces were available or likely to become available, she attempted to reverse out of the car park, but was obstructed by another vehicle that was also looking for a space. The driver of this other vehicle took some time to laboriously make a multi-point turn before leaving the route and enabling the Defendant to exit.

6. At no point did the Defendant’s vehicle enter a parking space. She did not turn off the car engine or leave the vehicle. She looked for a parking space, one was not available, so she left.

7. Parking is defined as “the act of stopping a vehicle at a place and leaving it there for a period of time” (Oxford English Dictionary). Every dictionary definition includes leaving the vehicle empty and stationary, whilst the driver exits and leaves the immediate vicinity. The legal definition of parking was clarified in Lord Greene’s judgment in Ashby v Tolhurst (1937), cited in “Words and Phrases legally defined” Fifth edition (2018). He held: You take a car park ticket in order to obtain permission to park your car at a particular place, and parking your car means, I should have thought, leaving your car in the place. If you park your car in the street you are liable to get into trouble with the police. On the other hand, you are entitled to park your car in places indicated by the police or the appropriate authorities for the purpose. Parking a car is leaving a car and, I should have thought, nothing else.

8. The Defendant did not enter a parking bay or marked space. She did not turn off the car engine or leave the vehicle. She therefore did not park, so she did not pay for a parking ticket.

9. She then drove to the Bridge Street Car Park where she waited briefly before finding a parking space and purchasing a ticket for the remainder of the morning for £6.50 (the receipt for which she provided to NCP and to POPLA). She then took an urgent telephone call before attending the event late, at approximately 11am, and participating in the radio interview at 11.15am.

10. The Defendant was therefore most surprised to receive an invoice for parking charges, dressed to appear as a parking penalty charge notification, and immediately informed the Claimant that no parking had taken place, and the claim was entirely spurious. She even made clear that to pursue a claim would be considered harassment and would be met with a counter-claim for the time involved in any defence and the emotional stress involved. The Claimant has since continued to pursue the claim with threatening letters for nearly two years, which the Defendant does consider to be harassment, and intends to respond to with a counter-claim.

11. The Defendant denies that any contract was entered or that any parking happened to trigger a payment being due. The Claimant is put to proof that the defendant parked and that they are entitled to any payment whatsoever.

Coupon-mad

No that's not the paragraph 3 I linked for you. You need to stop trying to write a story of what happened.

I've written your entire defence for you already, save for you needing to add a couple of words on the end of para 2 and change one date in para 3.

tegmim

Oh, I didn't see your additional post just above mine!

tegmim

I submitted my defence on 9th Jan, and have heard nothing since. Am I safe to assume that means the case has been stayed, and they are not continuing the claim?

KeithP

tegmim said:

I submitted my defence on 9th Jan, and have heard nothing since. Am I safe to assume that means the case has been stayed, and they are not continuing the claim?

You got an automatic email reply when you filed your Defence, didn't you?
What does your MCOL Claim History tell you?

tegmim

Yeah, an acknowledgement, nothing else. I haven't used MCOL for this case (they sent me the notification of claim through the post). Is there a way I can check online, or do I need to phone or email?

tegmim

I phoned. They are progressing. I will receive a directions questionnaire soon, which will allow the option of mediation.

Half_way

is this still relevant, waiting for space is not parking:

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html?m=1

Umkomaas

tegmim said:

I phoned. They are progressing. I will receive a directions questionnaire soon, which will allow the option of mediation.

Mediation is no longer 'an option', it is now mandatory.