ECP DCB Legal court claim 2025

Coupon-mad

Yep:

- you CANNOT Counterclaim 'later'

- has to be now

- DO NOT USE THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE. It's completely unsuitable for your facts.

aicatalia

Gr1pr said:

I think you need to login to the government gateway first, then use the claim reference number and password to login to MCOL 

You should also edit the thread title to something more suitable like 

ECP DCB Legal court claim 2025

I actually did register for the Government Gateway first — I followed the MCOL AOS help guide linked on the thread step-by-step to set it up properly.

I was able to complete the Government Gateway registration and I even received my MCOL customer number.
But I'm basically stuck after the enrolment page — it's when I try to enter the claim number and the password from the claim form that it shows an error.

From what I’ve read, it might be a rare case where there’s a typo or formatting issue with the password printed on the form itself.

Also, I've now changed the thread title as you suggested — thanks for pointing that out!

aicatalia

Coupon-mad said:

Yep:

- you CANNOT Counterclaim 'later'

- has to be now

- DO NOT USE THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE. It's completely unsuitable for your facts.

I understand now that if I wanted to counterclaim, it would have to be done at the same time as filing my Defence.

At this stage, I think I'm better off focusing on my Defence, especially since I already have strong evidence of cloning (police incident number, CCTV, Barking Council photos). I’d prefer to keep it straightforward without paying a fee or complicating things.

Also agree that the normal Template Defence isn't suitable as-is for my facts. I'm using a fully tailored Defence focused specifically on cloning and lack of evidence tying me to the alleged event.

Thanks again for the advice!

Coupon-mad

Password error is usually due to reading a lower case l (ell) in the MCOL password as capital I (eye) or vice versa, or maybe it's a number one. Try all.

aicatalia

Coupon-mad said:

Password error is usually due to reading a lower case l (ell) in the MCOL password as capital I (eye) or vice versa, or maybe it's a number one. Try all.

Omg thank you for that. It was capital I (eye) and I kept typing lower case l (ell). I have submitted my date of birth, contact information and picked "I intend to defend all of this claim". I have gotten the confirmation of the AOS being submitted aswell. I need to get my defence done now. 

Umkomaas

aicatalia said:

Coupon-mad said:

Password error is usually due to reading a lower case l (ell) in the MCOL password as capital I (eye) or vice versa, or maybe it's a number one. Try all.

Omg thank you for that. It was capital I (eye) and I kept typing lower case l (ell). I have submitted my date of birth, contact information and picked "I intend to defend all of this claim". I have gotten the confirmation of the AOS being submitted aswell. I need to get my defence done now. 

The NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, and the Template Defence Announcement will give you almost everything you need to write your Defence. No need to reinvent any wheels. 

Keep going through all the court processes, and DCB Legal will discontinue some time later this year. 

aicatalia

Umkomaas said:

aicatalia said:

Coupon-mad said:

Password error is usually due to reading a lower case l (ell) in the MCOL password as capital I (eye) or vice versa, or maybe it's a number one. Try all.

Omg thank you for that. It was capital I (eye) and I kept typing lower case l (ell). I have submitted my date of birth, contact information and picked "I intend to defend all of this claim". I have gotten the confirmation of the AOS being submitted aswell. I need to get my defence done now. 

The NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, and the Template Defence Announcement will give you almost everything you need to write your Defence. No need to reinvent any wheels. 

Keep going through all the court processes, and DCB Legal will discontinue some time later this year. 

Coupon-mad said:

Yep:

- you CANNOT Counterclaim 'later'

- has to be now

- DO NOT USE THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE. It's completely unsuitable for your facts.

Thanks both — I appreciate the input from each of you.

I understand now that the template defence is a great framework, but in my case (which is a bit unusual because of the car cloning and the fact I wasn’t even present at the scene), I’ve taken the approach of adapting it heavily to focus on the specific facts and evidence I have.

So I’ve used the structure and legal points where relevant, but removed sections about signage, own space parking, or unfair terms, and instead written a tailored defence based on:

• my police incident number

• CCTV showing my car at home

• and the Barking Council cancellation confirming cloning.

So I’m not fully relying on the template, but I’m also not reinventing the wheel either — I’m just shaping it to fit my facts. Is that okay?

Coupon-mad

Yes, that is a good approach; like this person did today (it was even concise enough to fit the MCOL box):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81449164/#Comment_81449164

aicatalia

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, that is a good approach; like this person did today (it was even concise enough to fit the MCOL box):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81449164/#Comment_81449164

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. The Defendant denies that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any terms or conditions. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is pursuing the Defendant as the registered keeper or otherwise.

---

Facts known to the Defendant:

1. The Defendant was, at the material time, the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the Defendant avers that the vehicle captured in the Claimant’s parking charge was not their vehicle, but a cloned copy. The Defendant was at home, approximately 27 miles away from the alleged parking location (Chelmsford Meadows), at the time of the incident. A formal report has been made to Essex Police and a cloning incident number (EP-redacted) has been issued.

2. The Defendant had listed their vehicle for sale online around the time of the incident on Facebook Marketplace, Gumtree, and Autotrader, including publicly available images of the number plate. The Defendant believes that this online exposure likely led to the number plate being copied and used illegally.

3. The Defendant later received a separate PCN from Barking Council, which after investigation was cancelled on the grounds of cloning, with photographic evidence provided by the council. Upon review, the Defendant confirms that the vehicle photographed was not theirs, despite matching the make and model.

4. Notable differences between the cloned vehicle and the Defendant’s actual vehicle include:

   • The cloned vehicle has a rear spoiler, tinted windows, and Lexus stickers on the door handles.

   • The Defendant’s car had visible rust along the lower passenger-side doors, damage to the front-right bumper, and a dent on the right wing panel.

   • The Defendant’s car was a gold-silver shade, while the cloned vehicle is clearly chrome silver in the images taken by Barking Council.

5. The Defendant is in possession of photographs taken just before the vehicle was sold (on 26 February 2024), clearly showing the above distinguishing features. These photographs are available for use as evidence and show that the Defendant’s actual vehicle was not the same car captured by the Claimant’s ANPR system.

6. The Defendant challenged the PCN promptly via the Claimant’s online appeals portal, explaining the situation and uploading evidence. The Claimant issued a rejection response dated 28 March 2024, but this email was automatically sent to the Defendant’s junk mail folder and was deleted before it could be read. By the time the Defendant became aware, the case had already been referred to Debt Recovery Plus, who refused to consider any appeals or evidence and demanded payment only.

7. The Defendant attempted to contact Euro Car Parks again but was unable to speak with anyone, as their system redirected all contact to the debt recovery agents. This left the Defendant with no further opportunity to resolve the issue informally.

---

Legal and Procedural Issues:

1. The Particulars of Claim are sparse, vague, and fail to establish a clear cause of action. They do not specify what conduct is alleged to have breached the terms and conditions, nor do they clearly identify whether the claim is brought under contract, tort, or another basis. The Defendant is therefore prejudiced in attempting to respond.

2. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and it is denied that the Claimant has established keeper liability. In any event, given the circumstances, the Defendant cannot be held liable for a cloned vehicle over which they had no control.

3. The Defendant avers that there was no agreement, no breach of contract, and no basis for any parking charge, as the Defendant’s vehicle was not present and no evidence has been provided to prove otherwise. The burden is on the Claimant to prove that the vehicle involved was the Defendant’s actual car, not a third-party clone.

---

Conclusion:

1. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out or dismiss the claim on the basis that:

• The Defendant was not the driver and their vehicle was not present;

• There is credible and documented evidence of vehicle cloning;

• The Claimant has failed to properly engage with the Defendant’s appeal;

• The claim lacks legal merit and particularisation.

---

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

(Please ignore my bullet points as when I copy and paste it resets it for each section) 

Coupon-mad

That's great to see; a non-template defence is right for a cloned numberplate case.

You don't need this if putting wording in on MCOL because the boxes already covers it:

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.