Euro Car Parks | DCB Legal & Court Forms

Coupon-mad

I'd remove this completely as your wife's point about not being liable / she transferred liability will be far clearer to the Judge:

"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."

You won't lose anything important by removing that chunk.

JN33

Coupon-mad said:

I'd remove this completely as your wife's point about not being liable / she transferred liability will be far clearer to the Judge:

"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."

You won't lose anything important by removing that chunk.

All sent to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk and received the instant email back to confirm receipt.

Nellymoser

Having completed your defence you'll be aware past and present Govt have been looking at ways to control this industry's unfair practices for sometime now.

Please sign the petition linked in the post below, encourage family, friends and work colleagues to do the same. Once your signature is confirmed use the shown link to 'Contact your MP to let them know you have signed this petition'. Our MPs are the people to make this happen. 🙏

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81195013/#Comment_81195013

JN33

Coupon-mad said:

I'd remove this completely as your wife's point about not being liable / she transferred liability will be far clearer to the Judge:

"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."

You won't lose anything important by removing that chunk.

Stupid rookie mistake, accidentally got the numbering wrong for the exaggerated claims, CRA breaches, ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished, Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR and conclusion!

All sent to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

Leave it as it is, or is there a procedure to follow to rectify? I assume that if the court order wanted us to update the defence, it would say so and tell us to submit a copy to the court and a copy to the Claimant?


This is the mistake, simply overlooked the numbers when proof-reading:

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 servicefor 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).

JN33

Should my defence show on the MCOL portal under the 'latest document' or 'claim history'? As right now it's showing the last history item as "Your acknowledgment of service was received on 11/02/2025 at 08:05:42".

The defence was sent on Fri, Feb 21, 12:43 PM via email to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

KeithP

JN33 said:

Should my defence show on the MCOL portal under the 'latest document' or 'claim history'? As right now it's showing the last history item as "Your acknowledgment of service was received on 11/02/2025 at 08:05:42".

The defence was sent on Fri, Feb 21, 12:43 PM via email to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

Some things take time. You have a receipt. Doesn't that receipt indicate that the CNBC will take several days to react to your submission?

JN33

KeithP said:

JN33 said:

Should my defence show on the MCOL portal under the 'latest document' or 'claim history'? As right now it's showing the last history item as "Your acknowledgment of service was received on 11/02/2025 at 08:05:42".

The defence was sent on Fri, Feb 21, 12:43 PM via email to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

Some things take time. You have a receipt. Doesn't that receipt indicate that the CNBC will take several days to react to your submission?

Correct 10 days to be precise, we're not expecting it done overnight especially since we sent it late Friday and it's been the weekend. We just wanted to know if we should expect to see it on MCOL because if it's not there before "4pm on Monday 3rd March 2025" when my wifes Defence is due we can chase it up.

Gr1pr

Yes it should,  but should is not "definitely will be"

Keep checking 

Coupon-mad

Ignore the numbering error. It's nothing.

JN33

@Coupon-mad @Gr1pr
I just realised we have put my wifes previous name on the defence and also signed the defence as her previous name (which is exactly what is on her court forms).

However when filling out the AOS, it asked if the name is different to what is on the court form or something along those lines and we put yes, and filled out the new title and surname.

Question; should we have put everything in the new name or are we ok with it being the previous name? We still haven't changed all of her ID etc. to be the new surname.

I only ask as MCOL still states the last action as completing the AOS, and we don't want this to be something that causes an error for a default judgement or anything on both cases. This is a new process for us and feel weary sending things to court etc.