Euro Car Parks | DCB Legal & Court Forms

JN33

Acknowledgment of Service - Confirmation

Step 5 of 5

Thank you. You have successfully submitted your Acknowledgment of Service (AOS) form to the court.

-----

Timeline:

A claim was issued against you on 28/01/2025

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 10/02/2025 at 18:08:08

-----

Now to prepare the defence using the guidance from above.
Appreciate all of the help and guidance, thank you

JN33

I have logged back into my Government ID on the Money Claim website, but says that my Claim Reference or Password is incorrect when trying to 'Respond to a claim made against you'. ?

I have emailed "MCOLITassistance@justice.gov.uk"

--

EDIT: turns out i was stupid and have used two different governmet ID's. Clearly love making life more complex...

Coupon-mad

Why are you trying to add a defence on MCOL, when the advice you've been given tells you not to?

JN33

Coupon-mad said:

Why are you trying to add a defence on MCOL, when the advice you've been given tells you not to?

I'm not, I was Acknowledging another claim and realised this claim wasn't showing.
Sending my defence to: ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

JN33

Thank you @Car1980 I merged your reply with the defence from "CEL/DCB Legal PCN - CNBC Claim - Defence Assistance required Please" to create:

POC:
1.The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimaint (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle XXXXXX at Cornhill, Wolverhampton.
2. The PCN(s) were issued on XX/XX/XXXX
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: NO Valid Pay and Display/permit was purchased
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Court Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.04 until judgement or sooner payment. 

3. Costs and court fees 

DEFENCE:

Claim No.:  *********
Between
Euro Car Parks Limited
(Claimant)
- and - 
XX WIFE NAME HERE  XX                     
 (Defendant)
_________________
DEFENCE

1. The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX but was not the driver at the dates and times submitted by the Claimant. 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 in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. This was communicated to the Claimants's solicitors 'QDR' on 01/02/03 and their second solicitor / bulk litigator 'DCB Legal'' on 04/05/06 by means of informing them of the name and address of the driver. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The 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". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, but NOT the driver at the time.

3. 'DCB Legal' refused the lawful transfer of liability and replied stating “Please note the timeframe in which to transfer liability has expired. You were given the opportunity to transfer liability to a named driver when the initial Parking Charge Notice was issued to you. You remain liable for the outstanding balance as the registered keeper of the vehicle”.

4. The Claimant's solicitor misunderstands the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, or is purposefully misrepresenting what it states. The 28 day time period is not a deadline or “transfer of liability window”. By naming the driver of the vehicle above any obligations as keeper have been discharged, and this can be made at any time up until proceedings:

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle

4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5 [are met]
Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4

5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—
(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b) is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.

5. Once the claimant has actual knowledge of the driver identity (name and address), the conditions in paragraph 5 are no longer met, so the right to pursue the keeper is extinguished.

6. Therefore it is requested that the claim be struck out Under CPR 3.4 (2)(a) as statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

7. In the alternative, the court under its case management powers orders the Claimant to provide further and better particulars, with the exact wording of the contract they rely upon and the Defendant be given time to submit a substitute defence.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government
Has all been used from this NEWBIES template defence here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1


-------

I will electronically sign and date this, then send it over to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk tomorrow morning.

Coupon-mad

This makes no sense becauise the Defendant hasn't said what they are talking about here:

2. This was communicated to the Claimants's solicitors 'QDR' on 01/02/03 and their second solicitor / bulk litigator 'DCB Legal'' on 04/05/06 by means of informing them of the name and address of the driver. 

NB: You won't be signing anything, if the Defendant isn't you!

JN33

Coupon-mad said:

This makes no sense becauise the Defendant hasn't said what they are talking about here:

2. This was communicated to the Claimants's solicitors 'QDR' on 01/02/03 and their second solicitor / bulk litigator 'DCB Legal'' on 04/05/06 by means of informing them of the name and address of the driver. 

NB: You won't be signing anything, if the Defendant isn't you!

1. 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 in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX but was not the driver at the dates and times submitted by the Claimant. This was communicated to the Claimants's solicitors 'QDR' on 01/02/03 and their second solicitor / bulk litigator 'DCB Legal'' on 04/05/06 by means of informing them of the name and address of the driver. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The 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". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, but NOT the driver at the time.


This should make more sense where I have moved it from point 1's opening sentence to point 2.

--

Correct, my wife will be signing. I need to get my head around it's not me...... Thank you for the reminders

JN33

Redacted defence copy:

Claim No.:  *********
Between
Euro Car Parks Limited
(Claimant)
- and - 
XX WIFE NAME HERE  XX                     
 (Defendant)
_________________
DEFENCE

1. 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 in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX but was not the driver at the dates and times submitted by the Claimant. This was communicated to the Claimants's solicitors 'QDR' on 19/02/24 and their second solicitor / bulk litigator 'DCB Legal'' on 04/12/24 by means of informing them of the name and address of the driver. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The 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". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, but NOT the driver at the time.

3. 'DCB Legal' refused the lawful transfer of liability and replied stating “Please note the timeframe in which to transfer liability has expired. You were given the opportunity to transfer liability to a named driver when the initial Parking Charge Notice was issued to you. You remain liable for the outstanding balance as the registered keeper of the vehicle”.

4. The Claimant's solicitor misunderstands the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, or is purposefully misrepresenting what it states. The 28 day time period is not a deadline or “transfer of liability window”. By naming the driver of the vehicle above any obligations as keeper have been discharged, and this can be made at any time up until proceedings:

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle

4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5 [are met]
Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4

5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—
(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b) is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.

5. Once the claimant has actual knowledge of the driver identity (name and address), the conditions in paragraph 5 are no longer met, so the right to pursue the keeper is extinguished.

6. Therefore it is requested that the claim be struck out Under CPR 3.4 (2)(a) as statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

7. In the alternative, the court under its case management powers orders the Claimant to provide further and better particulars, with the exact wording of the contract they rely upon and the Defendant be given time to submit a substitute defence.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

6. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

7. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

8. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

9. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

10. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found here:  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

11. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

12. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules.

13. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains endured by Defendants cost 'eight times less' than the  fixed +£70 per PCN. This causes immense consumer harm in the form of some half a million wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, that Judges are powerless to prevent.  MoJ statistics reveal several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with c90% causing default CCJs totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. The false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who aligned in 2021 to allow +£70, each led by a Board comprising the parking and debt firms who stood to gain from it. 

14. It is denied that the added damages/fee sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a PCN to £135 exaggerated the cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

15. This Claimant has not incurred costs. A PCN model already includes what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' and it generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and £85 was held to more than cover the minor costs of the operation (NB: debt collectors charge nothing in failed collection cases).

16. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, all non-monetary clauses went unchallenged. It will replace the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes, which are not regulation and carry limited weight.  It is surely a clear steer for the Courts that the DLUHC said in 2023 that it is addressing 'market failure'.

17. At last, the DLUHC's analysis overrides plainly wrong findings by Circuit Judges steered by Counsel in weak appeal cases that the parking industry steamrollered through. In Vehicle Control Services v Percy, HHJ Saffman took a diametrically opposed position to that taken by DJ Hickinbottom, DJ Jackson (as Her Honour Judge Jackson then was), and other District Judges on the North Eastern Circuit, including DJ Skalskyj-Reynolds and DJ Wright (Skipton) all of whom have consistently dismissed extortionate added 'fees/damages'. District Judges deal with private parking claims on a daily basis, whereas cases of this nature come before Circuit Judges infrequently. The Judgments of HHJ Parkes in Britannia v Semark-Jullien, and HHJ Simpkiss in One Parking Solution v Wilshaw were flawed. These supposedly persuasive judgments included a universal failure to consider the court's duty under s71 of the CRA 2015 and factual errors. In Wilshaw: a badly outdated reliance on 'ticket cases' which allowed poor signage to escape fair scrutiny and a wrong presumption that landowner authority 'is not required' (DVLA rules make it mandatory). In Percy, HHJ Saffman made an incorrect assumption about pre-action costs and even sought out the wrong Code of Practice of his own volition after the hearing, and used it to inform his judgment.

18. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance if seeking 'keeper liability'.

19. The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant's lack of large, readable signs are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, nor do they meet the signage requirements in the DLUHC Code which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').

CRA breaches

20. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a party raises it or not. Further, claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3):

 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

21. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'.  In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

22.  The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith). 

------

Signed and dated by my wife ready to send to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk







Before, sending just want to make sure it's now ok?

Le_Kirk

Why have you shown us the whole of the template, we only need to see your paragraphs 2 & 3 and any that you have added for checking.

JN33

Le_Kirk said:

Why have you shown us the whole of the template, we only need to see your paragraphs 2 & 3 and any that you have added for checking.

My apologies, I completely forgot to remove the Exaggerated Claims and CRA content.
Are paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 ok to send over?