Britannia Parking, DCB Legal court claim 2025

KeithP

MCOL password still showing.

tincombe

Given what you've posted, your correspondence with them and that the PoC still refer to 'keeper' in the alternative must give you an insight into the robotic and impersonal nature of this process. Don't see it as them v you, it's them v A N Other AKA ANOTHER mug! Except that in this case you've got advice as to how you manage procedure and procedure is where you are and probably where this will be resolved. 

Coupon-mad

Redacted version of your Britannia claim form above.

In most current defences v DCB Legal claims, paragraph 3 (within the 30 paragraph Template Defence) looks similar to the thread below by @shahib_02  ... just change the incident date:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

No need for more detail except in your case obviously add 'and driver' to the end of paragraph 2 of the Template Defence and just add an extra paragraph to the Template Defence, AFTER the easy (already almost complete) paragraph 3 shown in the link.

Then something like this as the extra para after the linked example para 3:

3.1. Patrons of the curry restaurant that the Defendant used are exempt from the time limit but this was not prominently communicated inside the restaurant or outside in the car park.  The signs were not seen and appear to be woefully inadequate based on other reviews from people similarly caught out. The Defendant had never even heard of Britannia Parking, let alone seen their supposed terms / purported VRM keypad nor agreed to a 'time limit' ultimatum to collect a curry within minutes or pay them a ludicrous three figure sum.  The Defendant does not even know from the PCN or the POC what that time limit was, but they tried to resolve it by contesting the parking charge with a screen-shot of their bank statement showing the amount paid to the restaurant but this was rejected by a template letter. There was clearly no agreed contract, no breach of a known 'relevant contract or relevant obligation' and no legitimate interest to save the charge from falling foul of the penalty rule in these circumstances.

4.  rest of the Template Defence of  some
30 paragraphs but DON'T copy & paste it here...please!

...please don't ask where the Template Defence is or how to get there on a phone. My signature already tells everyone exactly where to click to read the top 'sticky' threads.

Botherbys

Thanks for all the info. I’ll sit down tomorrow and get in with it. 

LDast

You could simply put this as your paragraph 3 and the claim will still be discontinued:

Roses are red, violets are blue,
The defendant will win, the evidence is true.
The claimant’s case falls, their logic askew,
No liability lies here, that much they knew!

Botherbys

Well that's the AOS done and yes it was pretty simple to complete once you start and follow the prompts. I presume everything is now done through MCOL and no need to respond any other way. Thanks again everyone is has taken their time to help

Coupon-mad

Botherbys said:

Well that's the AOS done and yes it was pretty simple to complete once you start and follow the prompts. I presume everything is now done through MCOL and no need to respond any other way. Thanks again everyone is has taken their time to help

But you haven't defended the claim yet.  You MUST NOW DEFEND.

Nothing else is done on MCOL.

@KeithP told you all this already in his reply earlier in your thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81234866/#Comment_81234866

KeithP

Botherbys said:

I presume everything is now done through MCOL and no need to respond any other way.

You are making a big mistake with that presumption.

Can I suggest you go back and re-read my earlier post on your thread where I wrote...

KeithP said:

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the AOS guidance.

Can you see the words 'by email' in there?

In that same post I also wrote...

KeithP said:

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Why have you decided to ignore those points?

Botherbys

I’m obviously going to do a defence: I was just saying it was easy to do the AOS. I’ll do the defence in a few days. I have some breathing space now. I’ll go back and read the advise before filing a defence

Botherbys

This is the defence going by advise, links and templates. Is that looking ok and is it just a case of forwarding this signed and dated to the correct email address ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

Hoping i'm nearly there!

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxx

Between

Britannia ParkingGroup Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Sxxxxxxxx  (My full name)                      

 (Defendant)

_________________

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. No PCN was "issued on 26/05/2024" (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 £178.16 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

 

3.1. Patrons of the curry restaurant that the Defendant used are exempt from the time limit but this was not prominently communicated inside the restaurant or outside in the car park.  The signs were not seen and appear to be woefully inadequate based on other reviews from people similarly caught out. The Defendant had never even heard of Britannia Parking, let alone seen their supposed terms / purported VRM keypad nor agreed to a 'time limit' ultimatum to collect a curry within minutes or pay them a ludicrous three figure sum.  The Defendant does not even know from the PCN or the POC what that time limit was, but they tried to resolve it by contesting the parking charge with a screen-shot of their bank statement showing the amount paid to the restaurant but this was rejected by a template letter. There was clearly no agreed contract, no breach of a known 'relevant contract or relevant obligation' and no legitimate interest to save the charge from falling foul of the penalty rule in these circumstances.

 

 

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.

Then "Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government" onward has all been used from Coupon-Mads "Template Defense thread". All of it, including the links.