Euro Car Parks - Claim Form received (from DCB Legal) 2

Motty2014

I have received the following claim form from DCB legal in relation to a PCN which was issued back in September 2019.

I have read the newbies thread and so far I have completed the Acknowledgement of Service via the MCOL portal (submitted 11/11/24).

I have drafted my defence letter (using the template in the Newbies thread) which I will add below but was hoping for some advice on anything extra to include in my defence (or alternatively remove).

Any other help/advice would be great, many thanks in advance.

 

Gr1pr

Only post the paragraphs that you have adapted, not the whole defence. Nobody is going to compare your defence to the template to work out your changes. Only your homework needs checking, easily done if you only post a few early paragraphs 

You have a couple of weeks left to finalise it 

Motty2014

Gr1pr said:

Only post the paragraphs that you have adapted, not the whole defence. Nobody is going to compare your defence to the template to work out your changes. Only your homework needs checking, easily done if you only post a few early paragraphs 

You have a couple of weeks left to finalise it 

Thanks, I guess there was only really 1 paragraph which was updated:

3. As the alleged breach of contract took place over five years ago, the defendant cannot recall the exact time specifics surrounding the allegation however the defendant did purchase a pay and display permit to cover the stay. The defendant is unsure if the ticket was allegedly issued on windscreen or if the alleged offence was captured via ANPR, as no Notice To Keeper (“NTK”) was ever received. The defendant does not recall receiving any PCN, NTK, or Debt Recovery Letters throughout the period since the alleged incident. 

Gr1pr

You also adapted paragraph 2 as well, everybody does 

That paragraph 3 reads as if letters went to an old address, usually because the RK hadn't updated their V5c promptly, a legal requirement, so not their problem. Not receiving paperwork is no defence 

You should concentrate on the POC, not the what ifs, no speculation about it 

IMHO, ECP use ANPR cameras, not on site operatives, any CEO wouldn't usually know if a vehicle had stayed longer than paid for , that is why they use ANPR cameras and computers, to work out the time on site versus the paid for time, with a grace period of 10 minutes 

I see that Sarah has inflated the £100 PCN by £143.80, thats some creative maths there

Motty2014

My biggest issue is given it was over 5 years ago I have no idea what the time frames were. I paid for a 24 hour ticket (I think) in the train station but my return train was delayed so must have gone over that time? So it’s difficult to form the defence when I can’t remember any of the details!

Gr1pr

ECP dont normally contract on train stations, they tend to be NCP, APCOA and Saba, not ECP 

Wallgate is a long, busy main road with various parking, including NCP, Morrissons is there and ECP are contractors for Morrisons etc

Wigan Wallgate train station is APCOA , and is nearby , but APCOA are NOT the claimant 

Your defence should concentrate on addressing the POC listed on the claim form, not supposition etc, so why do you believe that you received no paperwork. ? Changing address and failing to update the V5c. ?

The location of Wigan Wallgate on the POC means nothing really, it's a main road

Motty2014

There is an ECP on Wigan Wallgate, opposite the Wigan Wallgate train station. I may have received paperwork at some point during the 5 years but it will have been ignored, I get a lot of junk in the mail! 

Gr1pr

So the train station idea is a red herring, its just a car park overseen by ECP that happens to be close to the train station, like the NCP one 

Ignoring paperwork is not the same as your supposedly signed truth that states, no paperwork was received ! Many letters would have been sent to the registered keeper address, including a recent Letter of Claim from DCB Legal, they can easily use their records to prove it in court 

Everyone gets lots of junk mail, its no defence to the ECP letters, lawyers letters or Court letters , you need a better sorting method 

This is why you need to think carefully about paragraphs 2 & 3 , so I suggest that you concentrate on those two, no falsehoods, no assumptions or speculation, stick to the facts, so its possible that you might use these parts and add to paragraph 3

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. As the alleged breach of contract took place over five years ago, the defendant cannot recall the exact time specifics surrounding the allegation however the defendant did purchase a pay and display permit to cover the stay

Only use the last part in P2 if you DEFINITELY know that you were not the driver 

Motty2014

Gr1pr said:

So the train station idea is a red herring, its just a car park overseen by ECP that happens to be close to the train station, like the NCP one 

Ignoring paperwork is not the same as your supposedly signed truth that states, no paperwork was received ! Many letters would have been sent to the registered keeper address, including a recent Letter of Claim from DCB Legal, they can easily use their records to prove it in court 

Everyone gets lots of junk mail, its no defence to the ECP letters, lawyers letters or Court letters , you need a better sorting method 

This is why you need to think carefully about paragraphs 2 & 3 , so I suggest that you concentrate on those two, no falsehoods, no assumptions or speculation, stick to the facts, so its possible that you might use these parts and add to paragraph 3

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. As the alleged breach of contract took place over five years ago, the defendant cannot recall the exact time specifics surrounding the allegation however the defendant did purchase a pay and display permit to cover the stay

Only use the last part in P2 if you DEFINITELY know that you were not the driver 

Thanks again for your help, I have updated slightly following your advice. The part I am struggling with is that I bought a P&D permit for the maximum time available (24hrs), they are now saying I stayed longer than this. I can't prove that I did or didn't as it was over 5 years ago and have no detail about what they are alleging. The signage etc will have all been updated in the last 5 years so I can't go and revisit that to see what it said at the time etc. 

I think it is ridiculous that this is happening now 5 years on....

I updated the paragraphs as follows:

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.

3. As the alleged breach of contract took place over five years ago, the defendant cannot recall the exact time specifics surrounding the allegation. The POC is extremely vague in detail but the defendant did purchase a pay and display permit to cover the stay. 

Gr1pr

They have 6 years to sue someone, been that way since 1973. !

2) needs extra wording at the end, as mentioned in the template defence, it cannot just end with keeper 

3) probably needs extra wording too, the real question is what. ?  Study other recent cases for ECP and those 2 paragraphs within their defence drafts

You can get better core information after the new year, once all the preliminary stages are complete 

KeithP

Motty2014 said:

I updated the paragraphs as follows:

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.

3. As the alleged breach of contract took place over five years ago, the defendant cannot recall the exact time specifics surrounding the allegation. The POC is extremely vague in detail but the defendant did purchase a pay and display permit to cover the stay. 

Does the last sentence there go towards telling everyone who was driving?

Would it be better as "The POC is extremely vague in detail but the driver did purchase a pay and display permit to cover the stay"?