TOTAL CAR PARKS LIMITED & DCB Legal court claim 2025

wahidur35

Gr1pr said:

Then claim that you believe that you didn't receive it, you have no idea if it was issued or not, according to your question

Post your full proposed paragraphs 2 , 3 & 3.1 below so we can check them out 

If you mean the date,  they get that issue date wrong , so we know nothing was issued on that date,  but probably a different date 

They make mistakes,  we dont want you to make any mistakes,  which is why we are telling you to stick to the advice given here

I was misreading it before, the statement is true as no PCN was issued on the date as this would of been sent after if it did even come.
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. No PCN was "issued on 09/03/2023" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, 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 was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question and had parked at [CAR PARK] for a valid parking session. The required parking fee was paid in full via the Parkonomy app, and when requested by the Claimant’s solicitor, DCB Legal, the Defendant provided proof of payment along with the receipt from the app. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant parked “without a valid parking session”; however, this is incorrect. The Defendant made the correct payment for the full duration of the stay, including the correct start and end time. 

Please let me know if this fine. Thanks

Gr1pr

All looks good to me  ( the fact that they dont know the difference between the issue date and the incident date works in your favour,  and neither are a received date,  if it was received,  so not knowing if it was received is irrelevant at this stage   )

wahidur35

thanks to everyone for all the support I will submit now and will post any updates

carparkproblems

Wagidur35,

Firstly, best of luck with your case, I am very interested to see how this turns out and looking forward to seeing another one bite the dust!

Additionally

I am seeking some advice and, as per the newbies thread, I am refraining from starting a new thread until I receive a Letter of Claim (LOC) from DCBL Legal, which I am anticipating and preparing for in advance.

As of 28/02/2025, I have received a letter from DCBL Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd on behalf of Euro Car Parks Limited, demanding payment of £680 for four Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). The alleged contravention in each case is parking longer than the maximum period allowed in a free car park that permits a maximum stay of two hours. One charge dates back to 2022, while the other three are from 2023, all related to the same location. Each PCN was originally £100, with an additional £70 now added to each.

I would appreciate any expert insight on whether it is still viable to challenge these PCNs in court with a reasonable chance of success or if it would be more pragmatic to settle the amount.

I have reviewed various success stories on this forum where DCBL Legal has withdrawn claims at the last minute or cases have been dismissed by the courts. However, most of these involved individual charges of £160 £170. Given that my case involves multiple PCNs (four in total), would it still be worth pursuing a challenge?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated, and I will likely require further guidance should this progress to DCBL Legal.

Best regards! 

Gr1pr

It seems to me that you should follow the rules here and start your own thread for targeted advice,  butting in on another persons thread wont get answers because you are not the OP who has their own burden 

Please start a new thread,  thank you 

Coupon-mad

Answer: yes. It's a no-brainer. Court stage is the only stage to either settle or see it out. 

When you get your claim, start a thread. 

Le_Kirk

wahidur35 said:

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 09/03/2023" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, 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.  

In an earlier post you wrote 09/03/2024

carparkproblems

@Coupon-mad

Thank you for your advice, can I add, I am in Scotland. How will this affect my situation? 

KeithP

carparkproblems said:

@Coupon-mad

Thank you for your advice, can I add, I am in Scotland. How will this affect my situation? 

For a response to that question, and any other questions you may have, please start you own thread.
It is unfair on the person who started this thread to try and divert it towards your issue.

carparkproblems

@KeithP

You’re absolutely right, apologies and best of luck again with this case going forward!