Britannia Parking, DCB Legal court claim 2025

Coupon-mad

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

I thought you weren't the registered keeper? Your first drafts said you weren't.

Add this:

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.

BeachWalker

Coupon-mad said:

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

I thought you weren't the registered keeper? Your first drafts said you weren't.

Add this:

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.

Thanks for spotting yes I am just named driver not registered keeper. Its wife's car I was driving for a day.
3.2 sounds great much appreciated for your help.

BeachWalker

Hi,  a few points if you could please help and provide your input see what you think before i email the defense.

Do i need to quote the legal practice directions or can i just write the Rule itself? 

Rather than write the amount is hugely exaggerated is it better to just not admit the loss claimed?

Should legitimate interest be written as legal standing ?

Where coupon mad has recommended to write in para 3.2  The claimant knows full well , is this appropriate as we are giving evidence and here we are a making an assertion?

when quoting cases is it better to say the defendant relies on    " quote full citation of  whichever case"   not the case number cite it as X vs X and date reporting citation.

Do i need to divide the paragraphs and put in point 12 font?

I will state at the end, that the claim should be struck out and is an abuse of process.

Coupon-mad

No - 'standing' - is a completely different concept. 'Legitimate interest' is deliberately used in the Template Defence because that was the phrase used in ParkingEye v Beavis.

Rather than write the amount is hugely exaggerated is it better to just not admit the loss claimed?

No. Again, not the same concept.

The rest also need no changes except you can remove most of the middle stuff about the DLUHC as that's old news which I will edit out soon.

No point in this. You've been reading old threads. This doesn't happen any more:

I will state at the end, that the claim should be struck out and is an abuse of process.

BeachWalker

Coupon-mad said:

No - 'standing' - is a completely different concept. 'Legitimate interest' is deliberately used in the Template Defence because that was the phrase used in ParkingEye v Beavis.

The rest also need no changes except you can remove most of the middle stuff about the DLUHC as that's old news which I will edit out soon.

No point in this. You've been reading old threads. This doesn't happen any more:

I will state at the end, that the claim should be struck out and is an abuse of process.

Thankyou for looking over those points, determined to win this case. I got some photographs of the car park and entrance signs and the main entrance sign does not give much detailed information at all about entering reg plate correctly, and the main contract signs are situated a distance away from the payment meter

Coupon-mad

Show us the sign (but no evidence goes with a defence of course).

BeachWalker

These arethe entrance signs 

BeachWalker

BeachWalker said:

These arethe entrance signs 

Payment meter with no signs and the terms n conditions board at other side of car park 

BeachWalker

Hi, iv removed the paragraphs about the DLUHC an re numbered all other parargraphs to suit,
Using the template defense and looking over recent threads i can find i have this defense:
 ( Is it correct where its says in paragraph 3 that paragraphs 3 & 4 are denied? 
Thankyou 

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 registered keeper and driver.

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.

                                            

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.

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. 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. Further, claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3):

Coupon-mad

You didn't use my suggested 3.2?

You've included para 9 even though it's about the Draft IA that I said to delete.

We assume you haven't binned everything after para 9.