DCB Legal - ECP - Legal court claim 2025

Coupon-mad

electrified_porcupine said:

The Issue date of Claim for is 14/01/2025. If i calculate correctly i have until 15/02/2025 to file my defence. I obviously intend to send it off sooner than that.

Most DCB Legal case defences are similar to the thread below, where the template defence is used and paragraph 3 is as shown by @shahib_02  

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

Easy stuff.

@KeithP will hopefully come along to this thread tomorrow with some more info.

electrified_porcupine

Thank you for the link @Coupon-mad. I'll copy and paste that defence. 


Defence draft: (With personal details redacted)

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

Euro Car Parks Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXX                        

 (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, but NOT the driver at the time.

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 18/03/2023" (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.

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.

electrified_porcupine

Please let me know if there is anything else that i should include. If there are no other advisories i'd like to file my defence and get it over to the next stage.

KeithP

electrified_porcupine said:

The Issue date of Claim for is 14/01/2025. If i calculate correctly i have until 15/02/2025 to file my defence. I obviously intend to send it off sooner than that.

You are almost right with your Defence filing deadline.
 

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th January, you have until Monday 3rd February 2025 to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS'), but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AOS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AOS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

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.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an AOS, nor that for filing a Defence.

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'.

Coupon-mad

I'd add a 3.1. About the POC using prohibitive 'not authorised to park' words that make it clear that there was no parking contract on offer.

Search the forum for something like:

defence consideration trespass unauthorised

electrified_porcupine

Below updated defence text with added 3.1 about the fact that parking was prohibitted and no offer was made to non authorised vehicles:

Defence draft: (With personal details redacted)

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

Euro Car Parks Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXX                        

 (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, but NOT the driver at the time.

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 18/03/2023" (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 POC pleads that the purported contract breach is for ‘Reason :Your Vehicle Was Not Authorised TO Park’.  The Defendant had no idea about that term and no idea what 'relevant obligation' they are supposed to have missed, as it is known to the defendant that that car park is also used lawfully by authorised tenants. Nevertheless, nothing of value is offered to non-authorised drivers by the phrase relied upon in the POC. Therefore in the absence of consideration from the trader, no contractual 'meeting of minds' was possible and the only possible claim would be by the landowner, under the tort of trespass (not pleaded).  As found by DJ Iyer at Manchester Court, in PACE v Lengyel.

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.

electrified_porcupine

Can you please verify if this is correct and meets requirements to prove that there was no offer for unauthorised vehicles?

If it is, I'll go ahead and file my defence. No need to drag it on any longer in my view.

Thanks for all your help that i received so far. You are making great job on this forum helping people fight back!

Coupon-mad

Yes except for one big error:

"The Defendant had no idea about that term and no idea what 'relevant obligation' they are supposed to have missed,"

But you said you weren't the driver?!

electrified_porcupine

Thanks @Coupon-mad. I have removed that line now. I have copied this from another post.

Final defence draft:

Defence draft: (With personal details redacted)

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

Euro Car Parks Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXX                        

 (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, but NOT the driver at the time.

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 18/03/2023" (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 POC pleads that the purported contract breach is for ‘Reason :Your Vehicle Was Not Authorised TO Park’.  It is known to the defendant that that car park is used lawfully by authorised tenants. Nevertheless, nothing of value is offered to non-authorised drivers by the phrase relied upon in the POC. Therefore in the absence of consideration from the trader, no contractual 'meeting of minds' was possible and the only possible claim would be by the landowner, under the tort of trespass (not pleaded).  As found by DJ Iyer at Manchester Court, in PACE v Lengyel.

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.

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't entirely remove the line that I highlighted. It's a good line otherwise, with a phrase used in the Supreme Court. Really important.