DBL Legal Court Claim - Euro Car Parks - Small Overstay

svefn

Hello - I have been eagerly waiting to be approved to post in here and have been browsing other threads for the last week.

Just to start. Filed acknowledgment of service.


Here is the claim form:



From my memory, I overstayed for under 40 minutes whilst working in the hospitality sector in 2021. In my appeal, I offered to pay the extra £1 to cover the cost of the 24hr ticket rather than the 12hr ticket. Obviously this was refused. I admittedly ignored the tickets then moved house. 

When changing my address for a new driving license earlier this year, DCB Legal then started sending letter to my new address, until I got a letter of claim (ignored, silly me), then the court claim form.

I am currently putting together my defence with the included template here. 
Are there any particulars in which I should put? Honestly the best policy? Just state what happened that day with an accident with one member of the kitchen, we were down a staff member, clean up took longer and it took longer to get back to the car park?

Any help would be much appreciated. 

Kind regards,
J

Gr1pr

Save your stories for the witness statement, your issues at work are irrelevant to the alleged breach, just an excuse as to why the driver was late back 

Use the template defence by coupon mad 

Use the recent numbered rebuttal defence to start with in paragraph 3 

Add , and driver to the end of paragraph 2 , if true 

I wouldn't be admitting anything at this stage apart from being the driver 

Stick to rebutting the POC 

svefn

Thank you for a quick reply @Gr1pr.

and driver added to paragraph 4.

Using recent rebuttal and slightly edited below in bold.

This is my first time ever dealing with the legal system so this forum has been a blessing. Cheers.

3.  Owing to the fact that the Defendant used this car park on frequent occasions over a month period and the breach happened over 3 years ago the Defendant is unable to provide specific details regarding the alleged breach. The Claimant has failed to provide photographic evidence or any other proof that the Defendant's vehicle was parked in breach of terms, or that a Parking Charge Notice was issued and visible on the vehicle. Without adequate evidence, the Defendant cannot verify the validity of the claim. Furthermore, the Claimant has not demonstrated that sufficient signage or terms were clearly displayed and visible to the Defendant on the days to create a binding contractual obligation. The Defendant also questions the Claimant's right to recover the alleged sums in light of unclear evidence of their legal standing or authority to operate on the land in question.

3.1 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 the dates of the visits.  Whilst the Defendant was the keeper and driver, the rest of paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The claim 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.

3.2. The Claimant has not stated in this generic claim how long the Defendant did pay for on each occasion, or how many minutes they suggest were unpaid and what the landowner's required 'grace period' was at the time. These could even include 'keying errors' (a typo in the VRM or paying for the wrong car on the app). It is as clear as mud and the POC deliberately give the impression that the car was not paid for at all, which is denied. The Defendant was a paying patron of this car park in 2021 and the Claimant is put to strict proof of all allegations.

3.3.  In an attempt to narrow the issues, the Defendant recalls that there were always issues with the parking app and a specific problem of sometimes being unable able to top up paid-for parking. It was hit-and-miss that the payment methods would work from one day to the next, and there was no term requiring drivers to leave the site if the operator's system failed. And in the case of failed top-up attempts, the driver leaving the car park would not have avoided a PCN anyway, because it took so long to try and fail to top up that affected drivers would have incurred PCNs already. The defendant is now living in a different city to the car park is unable to now get any photos of the signage, nor can any records of very old app transactions be found three years later, which would have shed light in possible VRM errors and payments, and assisted the defence.

3.4.  To disingenuously bring this parking case to court so late is a cynical move and has caused extreme detriment to the Defendant, who feels almost powerless to prove their case. The Defendant submits that to sit on their hands for three years is extremely unreasonable conduct, and further, adding thirteen lots of the supposedly capped 'debt recovery fee' (which in itself as a single £70 bolt-on charge was said by the DLUHC Minister Neil O'Brien in 2022 as 'extorting money from motorists') was never part of the contract on the signs. As for the attempt to claim three years interest at 8% as some sort of reward for doing nothing, this beggars belief and is not something that a court will go along with, the Defendant trusts.

svefn

Paragraph 2*

svefn

Also if anyone could confirm, 33 days from issue date 20/11 would mean 23/12 last day of sending defence? I guess I have some time to really put something together. For some reason I thought it was two weeks after acknowledgment of service which would mean tomorrow. Was getting in a panic.

Gr1pr

If the AOS was completed online on or after the 25th, then 4pm on the 23rd is your deadline for email submission 

Definitely not tomorrow 

svefn

Brilliant. Thank you!

Coupon-mad

Defence looks good.  I see you copied it from another one and as long as there was an app option to pay and you are confident that it all makes sense for your case, then it should be fine. This bit need adjusting though as it says 'dates' (plural):

 No PCN was "issued” on the dates of the visits.

Normally people use the date stated and deny that a PCN was 'issued on 28/10/2021'.