Urgent help requested - DCB Legal/Euro Car Parks Claim Form

MadSquirrel

Hi everyone, 

I've left this ludicrously late due to urgent family matters and really need to get this defence sorted asap. Any help and advice would really be appreciated.

Date on the claim form is 18th October 2024, I filed AoS on 22nd. The claim relates to 3 PCNs from May and June 2022. I did originally appeal but was not successful. Since then all letters have been ignored until I received a letter before claim this August. I was not the driver and I did not name the actual driver to Euro Car Parks. 

Pics of claim form and an original NtK from 22:(Image removed by Forum Team)

None of the PCN dates stated in the PoC are actually the correct date of issue. Each one was issued one week after the date of event, yet the claim form is using the date of event as the date of issue. I also dont recall receiving any NtK for the first PCN until the discount period had already passed. 

Using the template defence and researching other people's situations, here is what I have so far:

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, but was not the driver.

3. It is denied that the Defendant is indebted to the claimant for the parking charges. It is also denied that PCNs were issued on the dates stated in the Particulars of Claim, with the actual dates of issue being one week later for all PCNs according to the Notice to Keeper for each PCN. Interest has therefore been calculated from an incorrect date and is for an incorrect sum.

4. It is denied that the Defendant can be pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of terms on the sign, firstly because the Defendant was not the driver, and secondly because no contract could have been formed based on the signage being unreadable. Shortly after receiving the NtK(s) the Defendant visited Browncross Street car park to examine the signage which the NtK claimed to be "clearly displayed" and found that it was anything but. The main signage above the ticket machine was located well above eye level and it was this positioning in addition to the small writing on the signage which made it unreasonably difficult to read the terms and form any kind contract. Therefore no contract could have been agreed to, and no breach of the terms has occurred. 

Any suggested edits and critiques of the defence so far are welcome. I am prone to waffling sometimes so please tell me if there's anything I can cut out or rephrase to make it sound better. 

Some questions I have:

I am unsure how to address number 4 in the PoC. I can't see anything in the NtK that makes it non-compliant with POFA, but perhaps someone else can?

I took photos of all the visible signage in the car park when I visited. Would I leave these photographs out until the witness statement and should I mention in my defence that I have photos of the signage? 

I am also unsure as to whether I should include the driver's version of events in the defence. The driver has said that they were unable to read the sign properly because of the size of the writing, fully believed that they did not stay beyond the time limit of the ticket they purchased, and they remember it took quite a bit of time to find a space, though they couldn't say for certain how long it took them since it was 2 years ago. Should I bother mentioning all this or should I stick solely to refuting the PoC without mentioning the driver? 

I'll be aiming to have this submitted by Monday evening🤞so any and all help is greatly appreciated. 

Coupon-mad

That defence looks fine.  Go for it!  Always worth defending, especially with four fake £70 added scams.  Make sure you defend asap because a claim over £600 sees HCEOs turn up if a CCJ is obtained.

I would add that the driver has said that they were unable to read the sign properly because of the size of the writing, fully believed that they did not stay beyond the time limit of the ticket they purchased on any occasion.

The NTK is POFA compliant but inadequate signage scuppers keeper liability (if the Judge agrees).

Le_Kirk

Good to see you stated that you visited the site after receipt of PCN so that you, as keeper could investigate the signage. So many times posters claim not be the driver but then go on to give chapter and verse about the signs without stating how they know this.

Gr1pr

Your password is not redacted on the claim form picture, otherwise its a good try, 9 out of 10

£751 for 3 PCNs at £100 a pop is ludicrous. !  £451 in added charges. !!!

As mentioned above, add a concise paragraph about what the driver told you 

No exhibits are submitted with your defence based on the template defence by coupon mad 

Email the final pdf attachment to the claim responses email address at the CNBC, as advised in the defence template thread in announcements 

KeithP

MadSquirrel said:

Date on the claim form is 18th October 2024, I filed AoS on 22nd. 

With a Claim Issue Date of 18th October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 22nd October, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 19th November 2024 to file a Defence.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

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

Coupon-mad

Gr1pr said:

£751 for 3 PCNs at £100 a pop is ludicrous. !  £451 in added charges. !!!

Indeed.

You can see why the Conservative DLUHC minister called it out as "extorting money". Even when you look at the nett sum before the fixed court & solicitors' fees it's over double.

8% interest helps. But on what planet is it legal for an already ludicrously high £300 for 3 PCNs to threaten a £751 CCJ where a parasite 'County Court Superuser' (invented in 2017 and soon achieved their publicised aim to become "the biggest parking bulk litigator") makes as much, if not more, than their client?

MadSquirrel

Gr1pr said:

Your password is not redacted on the claim form picture, otherwise its a good try, 9 out of 10

Oops I was so close! Don't think I'm able to edit it either. 

Coupon-mad said:

That defence looks fine.  Go for it!  Always worth defending, especially with four fake £70 added scams.  Make sure you defend asap because a claim over £600 sees HCEOs turn up if a CCJ is obtained.

I would add that the driver has said that they were unable to read the sign properly because of the size of the writing, fully believed that they did not stay beyond the time limit of the ticket they purchased on any occasion.

The NTK is POFA compliant but inadequate signage scuppers keeper liability (if the Judge agrees).

Thank you! I will add the next paragraph about what the driver said and get the defence filed via email tomorrow.

Thank you everyone who has commented. I'm not feeling too optimistic about my chances in court (if it comes to that) but figured I may as well have a crack at it with the amount they're demanding of me. 

Gr1pr

Press the report button on the post and ask the administrator to delete the picture for you 

MadSquirrel

Back again - deadline for WS is tomorrow. It was finished but DCB kindly decided to send their WS just this evening and I need help rebutting a few of their points, if anyone can assist.

They have once again stated incorrect issue dates for the PCNs. I have already mentioned in my own WS that this is a breach of CPR 16.4 and I will make note of the fact that they have made the same error in my WS. They have made more errors regarding the duration of stay in the car park: for the stay on 07/06/22 they claim the car was there for 3 hours and 21 minutes (it was 2 hours and 21 minutes), and on 14/06/22 they are claiming 3 hours and 29 minutes (actual time 2 hours 29 minutes). I would like to bring this up in my own WS - would it be appropriate to refer to CPR 32.14 about false statements, and what would be the most best way to phrase it?

Do I bother to respond to this part: "The Defendant has filed a widely available templated Defence, rather than dealing with the substantive issues. It is submitted the this is disingenuous and a waste of both the Court’s and my Company’s time." They have also suggested that my initial appeals weren't genuine, and were "an attempt to frustrate the matter, rather than dealing with the issues of the case". Is there anything I can say in response to my defence being the template?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help, I'm off to work on the bits I'm confident on and will pop back if I find anything else.

Coupon-mad

Save all of that for the hearing.

If you tip them off about errors they might send a supplementary WS to paper over the cracks.

In your WS, stick to your main points, such as a lack of a fair consideration period and grace period.

And that the driver has said that they were unable to read the sign properly because of the size of the writing, and fully believed that they did not stay beyond the time limit of the ticket they purchased on any occasion.

Use the exhibits shown in the NEWBIES thread second post - read the section about this stage - plus reference and link the transcript of HMRC v NCP (the green button authority - search the forum for it).