Court claim received - defence advice please

y123

I have received a court claim dated 03/01/2025 for a PCN issued against me on 01/04/2023

The Claimant is Euro Car Parks Limited with DCB Legal Ltd as their legal representative.

Particulars of claim:
1. The defendant is indebted to the claimant for a parking charge issued to vehicle *Vehicle reg* at *Location (which is a petrol station car park)"
2. The PCN were issued on 01/04/2023
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Your Vehicle Was Parked Longer Than The Maximum Period Allowed.
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMAINT CLAIMS
1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.04 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

Amount Claimed
£194.56

Court Fee

£35.00

Legal representatives costs

£50.00

Total Amount

£279.56

Issue Date

03/01/2025

In my defence I don't believe I am responsible to pay this amount as I visited this car park for a legitimate reason which was to use the laundry service facility located at the premises to which I parked and had to stay with my vehicle unable to drive away due to an engine overheating issue which was a safety concern.

I have ignored any correspondence from either party and in this period of time have also moved address and somehow their legal rep have traced me to my new address which has left me wondering how they can legally source my details as a private individual.

Please could I have some advice on how to proceed?

Thank you 

Gr1pr

Do your aos online on MCOL 

Adapt your defence to be similar to this recent ECP one,  adapting paragraphs 2 & 3 only 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81139187/#Comment_81139187

They used a 29p tracing service for tracking you down,  perfectly legal,  nothing to see there 

y123

Gr1pr said:

Do your aos online on MCOL 

Adapt your defence to be similar to this recent ECP one,  adapting paragraphs 2 & 3 only 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81139187/#Comment_81139187

They used a 29p tracing service for tracking you down,  perfectly legal,  nothing to see there 

Thanks for your reply, this is what my drafted response looks like:

Referring to the Particulars of claim:

Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant.

Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 01/04/2023" (the date of the alleged visit). 

Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper, 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.

Would this be enough or more information required?

Thanks

Gr1pr

Have you done that AOS yet   ?

Add a 3.1 about the driver believes that on the actual incident date they had a vehicle breakdown due to engine overheating issues 

You have not shown us your para 2 yet either 

Draft your proposals for paragraphs 2 & 3 and post them all below for further comments 

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd January, you have until Wednesday 22nd January 2025 to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

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

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 5th 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 Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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

Here you go:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6578898/claim-form-advice

Such a similar case (overheating engine) I thought you were one and the same as that poster. The defence is already written for you.

y123

Thank you all for your assistance in this matter, I am in the process of producing the draft at present and aim to post here soon for review and any comments. 

Gr1pr

Excellent,  but only post your draft proposals for paragraphs 2 & 3 below,  not the rest,  thanks 

y123

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 and driver.

Referring to the Particulars of claim:

3.

Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant.

Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 01/04/2023" (the date of the alleged visit). 

Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper, 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 vehicle entered the parking facility situated within the premises of a petrol station for the lawful and legitimate purpose of utilising the laundry service provided on the premises. During the visit the driver experienced an issue with the vehicle, specifically the engine overheating issue confirmed by the warning signs that display on the onboard drivers information system. This issue rendered the vehicle temporarily unable to operate normally, forcing the driver to stay with the vehicle and unable to drive away safely. Given the safety risks associated with operating a vehicle under such conditions, the driver was unable to move the vehicle from the parking facility. In light of these concerns, and to mitigate the risk of further damage to the vehicle or potential harm, the vehicle remained around the parking area of the petrol station. The vehicle was kept in the parking facility for the period required allow the engine to cool and return to its normal operating condition, thereby ensuring the vehicle could be operated safely. The time on top of the actual 'parking period' are not part of that definition, as confirmed by the Government's statutory Code of Practice. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the vehicle significantly 'overstayed'. 

3.2.  

In an official, published BPA news article by Kelvin Reynolds, BPA Director of Corporate Affairs, he states that there is a difference between 'grace' periods and 'observation' periods in parking and that good practice allows for this:

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. Our guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket. No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person 5 minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

3.3.  This (consumer fairness) position is also reflected by the planned statutory regime which will flow from statute law already enacted, and which the new Government is now set to finalise in the coming months. Under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, the Secretary of State 'must' lay a statutory Code of Practice before Parliament and provide for a regulated regime of scrutiny to overcome the wholesale 'market failure' of the consumer-harming private parking industry. The draft statutory Code of Practice includes clauses that were not objected to by the parking industry's 2022 Judicial Review 'blocking tactics'. In the definitions, the DLUHC (now MHCLG) state at 2.24: - parking period:  the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired ... This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land."  

Coupon-mad

I'm sorry but I couldn't bring myself to read any further because this reads like (horrible) Chat GPT wrote it:

"The vehicle entered the parking facility situated within the premises of a petrol station for the lawful and legitimate purpose of utilising the laundry service provided on the premises. During the visit the driver experienced an issue with the vehicle, specifically the engine overheating issue confirmed by the warning signs that display on the onboard drivers information system."

I already wrote a defence in normal English that will almost exactly suit your case (see the link) and I can see you used it. But please don't get a bot to re-write 3.1.

y123

Coupon-mad said:

I'm sorry but I couldn't bring myself to read any further because this reads like (horrible) Chat GPT wrote it:

"The vehicle entered the parking facility situated within the premises of a petrol station for the lawful and legitimate purpose of utilising the laundry service provided on the premises. During the visit the driver experienced an issue with the vehicle, specifically the engine overheating issue confirmed by the warning signs that display on the onboard drivers information system."

I already wrote a defence in normal English that will almost exactly suit your case (see the link) and I can see you used it. But please don't get a bot to re-write 3.1.

Revised section below (the link you provided the 3.1 section is similar but had to be revised to suit)

3.1

The vehicle visited this car park located within a petrol station for a legitimate reason which was to use the laundry service facility located on the premises to which the driver parked however the driver was forced to stay with the vehicle and unable to drive away due to an engine overheating issue. As this was a safety concern, the vehicle had to remain within the car parking facility/ petrol station in order to allow the engine to cool and return to normal vehicle operating conditions. The time on top of the actual 'parking period' are not part of that definition, as confirmed by the Government's statutory Code of Practice being finalised this year. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the vehicle significantly 'overstayed'. More likely is that the Claimant failed to allow a suitable consideration period on arrival in addition to the standard minimum ten minute grace period. A reasonable period of minutes to drive round and find a space and park on arrival (then read any signs, which is when contract can commence) and also the minimum ten minutes that must be added upon leaving, do not count and would fall within reasonable grace periods. The British Parking Association ('BPA') and the relevant Government Department (now renamed the MHCLG) agree with this point: