Submitting Defence, 3 in 1 offences from Euro Parks using DCB Legal

nopayresident23

Hi, once again I am back here, this group was very helpful in winning my first case. This time, its three in 1 case, i have submitted AOS 04/11/2024 and looking to submit defence by 25/11/2024 (I know its early, trying to get everything in). 

Here is the defence;

Euro Car Parks Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

************************
                     

 (Defendant)

DEFENCE

The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  

The Defendant submits this statement in defence against the Parking Charge Notices (PCN) issued by Euro Car Parks for an alleged contravention of the following offences on the case 1: 18/12/2021, case 2: 23/01/2022, case 3: 28/01/2022.

The Defendant contends that the charge is unjustified and unenforceable on the following grounds. 

1. The facts as known to the Defendant:

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle at the times stated by the claimant.
2. The defendant will be referring to cases as the follows:
   Case 1: pcn issued on 28/01/2022,
   Case 2: pcn issued on 18/12/2021
   Case 3: pcn issued on  23/01/2022

1. Case 1: pcn issued on 28/01/2022:
1. Circumstances: A parking fee was paid for 3 hours by defendant, but the defendant overstayed for a fourth hour due to an inability to extend payment via the app after realising the expiry time.  The payment was also applied to the wrong vehicle registration number which is GL60COA instead of FY15YLK. 
2. The defendant made an appeal to reduce the charge but that was rejected with a templated response which did not carefully address the case.
3. Defence Arguments
1. Payment in Good Faith: Payment of 3hours was made, clearly demonstrating an intention to comply with the terms of parking. The Claimant’s apps inability to extend payment placed the defendant at an unavoidable disadvantage, violating Clause 6.1 of the BPA Code, which requires user-friendly payment systems. (See attached receipt- 28/01-001)
2. In Excel Parking Services v. Mrs. S [2017], the court dismissed a claim where poor signage and technical difficulties impeded compliance. This supports my argument that technical barriers beyond my control should not result in punitive enforcement
3. Grace Period: The BPA Code (Clause 5.2) requires operators to provide a grace period before issuing penalties. This was ignored in defendant’s case.

3. Case 2: 18/12/2021

1. Circumstances: The defendant made payment but selected the wrong vehicle. The vehicle stayed in the parking lot for extra 30minutes as the defendant couldn’t extend parking due to limitations on the app. The defendant appealed and offered to pay the outstanding amount, but the appeal was rejected with a templated response. (See attached, Appeal letter, PBP Receipt- Case 2)
2. Defence Arguments:
1. Keying Error Leniency: Clause 6.3 of the BPA Code mandates parking operators to adopt leniency and appropriate mechanisms to rectify accidental keying errors. The claimant punishing the defendant with a £100 fine instead of accepting the shortfall contravenes this requirement.
2. Proportionality Principle: The Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ruled that parking charges must act as a deterrent while remaining proportionate. A £100 penalty for a minor keying error is grossly disproportionate.
3. Fairness Under Consumer Rights Act 2015: The penalty is unfair and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act as the operator failed to consider mitigation
   
1. Case 3: pcn issued on 23/01/2022
1. Circumstances: The defendant made payment on claimants app to cover 12:13 PM to 1:13 PM, while the vehicle was parked from 11:26 AM to 1:15 PM. 
2. Defence Arguments:
1. Systemic Payment Issues: The discrepancy arose from system rigidity and not from deliberate non-compliance. The claimant’s app does not allow users to extend parking limits after payment. Such overlaps fall under the grace period provisions in Clause 5.2 of the BPA Code, which the operator failed to account for.
   
   In Jopson v. Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, the court dismissed a claim where minor timing deviations were deemed inconsequential.
2. Fairness Under Contract Law: Enforcing a penalty for minor time misalignments contravenes fairness under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
2. General Defence points for all cases
1. **Deficient Signage** (See attached - Car sign 001)
   The signage fails to comply with Clause 3.1 of the BPA Code, requiring clear and legible information. The attached image demonstrates small, unclear text, which fails to inform users adequately about terms, keying errors, and ANPR enforcement.
1. The signage at the site where the alleged contravention occurred fails to meet the requirements of clarity and legibility as outlined in both the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Specifically:
2. Font Size and Placement of Cost Information: The cost of breaching the parking terms and conditions is displayed in a font significantly smaller than other text on the signage, making it difficult to read from a typical distance. This lack of prominence fails the test of fairness and transparency required under consumer law, particularly as these terms form the basis of a contract.
3. Overall Visibility: The sign’s placement and design do not ensure that a motorist can easily understand the terms before deciding to park. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis emphasized the importance of clear and prominent signage in creating enforceable parking terms, and the claimant’s signage falls short of these standards
   
   Case law (Pace Recovery v. Noor [2016]) supports that unclear signage invalidates claims.
2. **Grace Periods**
   
   The BPA Code mandates a grace period under Clause 5.2, allowing drivers time to park, read terms, and pay. No evidence suggests this grace period was applied in any of the cases.
3. **No Financial Loss**
   
   Parking charges are intended to deter breaches, not penalise genuine errors. Since parking was paid for in all cases, no financial loss occurred. There was a clear intention from defendant to comply with claimant rules by making payment but due to limitations of the app, claimant wasn’t able to fully comply.
   The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v. Beavis underlined that penalties must reflect actual losses, which are nil here.
4. **Consumer Rights Act 2015**
   
   All terms must be transparent and fair. Applying excessive penalties for minor errors breaches these standards.
5. **Rejected Mitigation**
   
   All appeals were rejected without proper consideration, contrary to Clause 8.4 of the BPA Code. The BPA Code requires operators to act fairly and consider extenuating circumstances. Templated responses were used instead of claimant really considering solutions offered by the defendant.
3. Conclusion
1. In all three cases, the defendant acted in good faith by paying for parking. The penalties issued are disproportionate, violate the BPA Code of Practice, and fail to meet the standards of fairness required under the Consumer Rights Act 2015..
2. The claim is entirely without merit. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale.
3. There is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims.  For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of intimidating pre-action threats.
   
   In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks:
   
   (a) at the very least, for standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and
   
   (b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 
4.  Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "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))."   

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Do let me know if there is anything missing or more to add. Also a tip here, i use AI to create this defence, if it should work, this is will be mind blowing.

nopayresident23

also plan is to submit to this email, heard its the new one to use if not please do let me know. 
ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

Gr1pr

No offences occurred 

No penalties occurred ( or fines. )

The disproportionate aspect died 9 years ago in the Beavis case 

Exhibits are submitted to your local court in several months time ( not in a textual defence. )

Bin the AI rubbish and use the template defence by coupon mad in announcements 

What is the issue date on the claim form. ?

Yes use that New email address ( it's been available sincerely the beginning of march 

KeithP

I think you are tackling this the wrong way.

You proposed Defence appears to leave out a lot of the points in the template Defence.

No exhibits get filed with a Defence.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?
Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with all your personal detail hidden of course.

nopayresident23

@KeithP
Is that an assumption? NO exhibits gets files with a defence because i did with my first case and won the case with ease.

KeithP

nopayresident23 said:

@KeithP
Is that an assumption? NO exhibits gets files with a defence because i did with my first case and won the case with ease.

No, not an assumption.
Traditionally, evidence comes at Witness Statement time.
There is probably something in the CPRs about this, but I'll leave you to look it up if you feel the need.

nopayresident23

sure, will look it up, as stated, i included  it in my early defence and won with no issues. 

nopayresident23

@Gr1pr @KeithP Issue date 30/10/2024

AOS date 4/11/2024

KeithP

nopayresident23 said:

Issue date 30/10/2024
AOS date 4/11/2024

With a Claim Issue Date of 30th October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 2nd December 2024 to file a Defence.

That's one week 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 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'.

nopayresident23

Thank you will keep dates in mind. 

Coupon-mad

nopayresident23 said:

Thank you will keep dates in mind. 

The version you have shown us is very old. It's not the current template defence.