Britannia Parking, DCB Legal court claim 2025

Coupon-mad

With a claim about a single PCN from Britannia via DCB Legal, this defended case will be discontinued by Christmas.

Did you find access to the POPLA evidence pack then? Please show us the landowner authority, if they supplied that.

BeachWalker

Coupon-mad said:

With a claim about a single PCN from Britannia via DCB Legal, this defended case will be discontinued by Christmas.

Did you find access to the POPLA evidence pack then? Please show us the landowner authority, if they supplied that.

Hiya that would great to have this cleared up by Xmas.
Unfortunately I can't seem to access the evidence pack any longer, can login but nothing opens. Is it worth asking popla if possible to review them again ? 

Coupon-mad

Yep they have to release it because it's a pack full of your data.

BeachWalker

Coupon-mad said:

Yep they have to release it because it's a pack full of your data.

Spoke to Popla and they said they put the operator evidence into archive after 1 month, they have agreed to send to me by email but can take upto 28 days, not much use by that time with helping to prepare defence by 1st July.

Gr1pr

But you don't need it for the defence or by that deadline,  more useful in several months time at the WS + Exhibits stage 

BeachWalker

Hi Forum , i have found a recent defense template and put together this so far my part in paragraph 3.1  any advice to change or improve it would be much appreciated.

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 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 a named driver of the vehicle not the Registered Keeper.

 

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 07/06/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the named driver of the vehicle, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

3.1. The defendant made a keying error, entering their other cars VRM. The defendant paid for parking correctly of £1 for 1 hour by card payment as seen on the defendants Bank Statement and the Claimants equipment stated Approved Thankyou. The Claimant made no attempt to match up the obvious 'wrong car' payment that clearly matched the drivers time in the car park, Also, it is the Government's clear position that penalising drivers for VRM errors is an unfair burden under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because parking firms have the right VRMs in their ANPR footage and should immediately reject a wrong VRM being typed in ('vehicle not on site') on the day, and not issue PCNs at all for any VRM typos. Unfair terms that are weighted against the consumer and breach the CRA are unrecoverable.

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Coupon-mad

You've looked at an older version. I can tell because you've got "No PCN was "issued on 07/06/2024" (the date of the alleged visit)." which is not now used.

Use the Template Defence. Top of the forum.

BeachWalker

Coupon-mad said:

You've looked at an older version. I can tell because you've got "No PCN was "issued on 07/06/2024" (the date of the alleged visit)." which is not now used.

Use the Template Defence. Top of the forum.

Okay thanks, iv found the newer template is this the correct one? Iv excluded all the other paragraphs here but will include when emailing as advised on the 12 steps. 

Is this enough information of my situation or does it need padding out a bit more on para 3.1 ? 

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 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 a named driver of the vehicle not the Registered Keeper.

 

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 07/06/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the named driver of the vehicle, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

3.1. The defendant made a keying error, entering their other cars VRM. The defendant paid for parking correctly of £1 for 1 hour by card payment as seen on the defendants Bank Statement and the Claimants equipment stated Approved Thankyou. The Claimant made no attempt to match up the obvious 'wrong car' payment that clearly matched the drivers time in the car park, Also, it is the Government's clear position that penalising drivers for VRM errors is an unfair burden under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because parking firms have the right VRMs in their ANPR footage and should immediately reject a wrong VRM being typed in ('vehicle not on site') on the day, and not issue PCNs at all for any VRM typos. Unfair terms that are weighted against the consumer and breach the CRA are unrecoverable.

 

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Gr1pr

Still not new enough,  the lawyers changed from writing ISSUED to the word CONTRAVENTION, so either study the template defence as already explained,  or a defence written within the last 2 months 

The POC changed at the beginning of April 

BeachWalker

Gr1pr said:

Still not new enough,  the lawyers changed from writing ISSUED to the word CONTRAVENTION, so either study the template defence as already explained,  or a defence written within the last 2 months 

The POC changed at the beginning of April 

Hi im struggling with finding what dates the defences where actually written, i can see the newbie thread template defense which i used first but was an old one.  this one is from a more recent post:

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 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 named driver not the registered keeper.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 07/06/2024, as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the named driver of the vehicle  paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The amount is hugely exaggerated and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

 3.1. The defendant made a keying error, entering their other cars VRM. The defendant paid for parking correctly of £1 for 1 hour by card payment as seen on the defendants Bank Statement and the Claimants equipment stated Approved Thankyou. The Claimant made no attempt to match up the obvious 'wrong car' payment that clearly matched the drivers time in the car park, Also, it is the Government's clear position that penalising drivers for VRM errors is an unfair burden under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because parking firms have the right VRMs in their ANPR footage and should immediately reject a wrong VRM being typed in ('vehicle not on site') on the day, and not issue PCNs at all for any VRM typos. Unfair terms that are weighted against the consumer and breach the CRA are unrecoverable.

3.2. There is no 'legitimate interest' in pursuing a Defendant who paid in full. There was no loss, and the Claimant knows full well that the wrong VRM did not relate to a vehicle in the car park and that they received the payment relating to the Defendant's period of parking. This has been tested at appeal: in a short 'reasons' judgment or order dated 10th June 2024, His Honour Judge Pema (sitting at the County Court at Bradford) refused Excel Parking Services Ltd's attempt to appeal the decision in Case no K4QZ4Y21 which was a VRM typo case, on all fours with this one. There is no cause of action.