Eurocarparks DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

Mo_alvi

Hi again, now I have received this letter on a couple of days ago. From what I have read in the newbies page, that this is a LBC. 
I also saw the Gatwick airport template to the dw legal. 

However, a things to update you on. I didn't make the Parking claim as I didn't realise they're is a time limit. 
Secondly, my point to them was I never received the first parking ticket but later on I did find it. 
Thirdly, the car on which I got the parking ticket had an accident and was scrapped.

Do I still follow the letter mentioned in the Gatwick airport template to do legal?

Can I stick to the, I was the registered keeper but not the driver story?

I will also contact the landowner as you have advised on the newbies page.

Coupon-mad

No. That is not a LBC; that's an actual Claim Form. Show us the other side but redact the same 4 things you will have noticed people redact when you read other DCB Legal Claim threads.

Mo_alvi

 Thank you for coming back so quickly. 

Coupon-mad

OK very easy to defend using the Template Defence but firstly acknowledge the claim online.  See post 2 of the NEWBIES thread (not the first bit about LBCs).

Mo_alvi

Hi Coupon-mad, 
I have managed to submit the acknowledgement. Sorry I'm bit familiar with the laws etc so it took time. Please see the below.

I have gone thru the post 2 multiple times but will need to go thru some DCB legal threads for my defence as my situation is slightly different but probably everyone says this to you. 

Claim was issues on the 28th and i have acknowledged it today. So do i have 28 days from the date when the claim was made?

I read that the defence should be sent by email to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk is this correct? 

Sorry as i wasnt sure how to contact the court.. so had to google it.

Please advise

Gr1pr

If the issue date was 28th August and the AOS stage online has been completed,  then the deadline is 4pm 33 days after the issue date,  so 30th September 

You are wrong about emailing your defence,  the defence template thread clearly states that you submit it on MCOL once approved,  that latest And new advice started over 6 weeks ago , so definitely not email or snail mail 

No need to Google anything,  follow the advice in the first 2 posts in the defence template thread 

Also study any ECP DCB LEGAL cases with issue dates within the last 6 weeks 

Please change your thread title to something more suitable like 

Eurocarparks DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

Mo_alvi

Hi All, thank you for your help!
Please could you advise if this seems fine:

The points 1, & 4-10 are the copy paste from the link : https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-with-added-admin-dra-costs-edited-in-2025/p1


1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague, and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant admits being the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver of the vehicle on 27 July 2024, the date on which the Parking Charge was issued. The Defendant further contends that the Notice To Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

3. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 4, research has proved that this Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable. This is important because the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly or negligently misleading the court by citing that law. Despite tens of thousands of boilerplate claims from DCB Legal causing inflated default CCJs this year – as they have reportedly filed a ‘job lot’ of template bulk claims for this Claimant, all repeating the untruth about the POFA 2012 – Smart Parking has no cause of action against any registered keeper.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Coupon-mad

Nope. That isn't true about Euro Car Parks. They have used the POFA for years.

Mo_alvi

So I'd need to write my own point 3 and 4?

Any suggestion what i should look for? 

Coupon-mad

No you don't write your own. Just copy from an ECP claim thread not a Smart Parking one!