Can you please check my defence against ECPL/DCB Legal?

cherryshaker

Hi All, 

please can someone provide feedback on my defence below vs ECPL?

Facts:
- i was a regular patron at this parking site between 2022 and 2023 due to attending classes in the evenings, i have ticket photos and can retrieve the payment details from the bank
- i was issued a PCN (I cannot recall the exact date) on one of the occasions as i overstayed by under an hour, this was because i got to the car park around 17:40ish and paid for the minimum amount (2 hours) as at 1800 the 6 quid for 24 hour kicks in and as i vaguely recall the machine didn't let me pay for more than the 2 hours.
- from the first PCN to the several letters of harassment from DCB i have sent emails and letters to ECPL stating the above and disputing this with no acknowledgment or response whatsoever.

the above is just to provide some context, as per the several guidelines on this forum i have not included any of the above specifics in the below defence.

for context:
- Claim issue date 3 Jan 2025
- AOS Submitted 8 Jan 2025 at 13:54
- AOS Received 8 Jan 2025 at 16:05

grateful if the defence timelines could be clarified too.

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle AB 12 CDE at X Street Manchester.
2. The PCN(s) were issued on XX/YY/2023
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the Signs (the contract). Reason: The PandD/permit Purchased Did Not Cover The Date And Time Of Parking 
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT 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 Act1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.04 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

Defence 

3. Owing to the fact that the Defendant used this car park on frequent occasions over a few months period and the breach happened almost 2 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 date of the visit.  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 2022 and 2023 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 machine and a specific problem of sometimes being unable able to top up paid-for parking and being limited with selecting the maximum parking time. 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 unable to retrieve parking machine failure photos, 2 years on as these were submitted as part of the several letter sent to the Claimant, 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 two 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 almost two 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.

and paras 1,2, and 4 to 30 of the template also included. 

grateful for any assistance and please let me know of you require any further details from myself. 

Coupon-mad

Looks fine if all that is true about the payment methods being unreliable.  Looks right!

I'd remove this sentence because the POC don't give this impression in your case:

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.

cherryshaker

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine if all that is true about the payment methods being unreliable.  Looks right!

I'd remove this sentence because the POC don't give this impression in your case:

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.

Thanks so much! I’m grateful. 

I have taken this from another post on here, which included unreliable payment method referring to the App services, I have tweaked it slightly to refer to the pay machine which is also unreliable as it sometimes doesn’t work at all or as mentioned didn’t let me pay more than 2 hours. 

Would you be able to confirm deadline for the defence submission based on the above timeline please? 

KeithP

cherryshaker said:

- Claim issue date 3 Jan 2025
- AOS Submitted 8 Jan 2025 at 13:54
- AOS Received 8 Jan 2025 at 16:05

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 5th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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 AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

cherryshaker

KeithP said:

cherryshaker said:

- Claim issue date 3 Jan 2025
- AOS Submitted 8 Jan 2025 at 13:54
- AOS Received 8 Jan 2025 at 16:05

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 5th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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 AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Thank you! 

I have accidentally started a defence on MCOL, am I okay to delete this? I haven’t submitted anything yet. 

Coupon-mad

Delete it immediately.

KeithP

cherryshaker said:

KeithP said:

cherryshaker said:

- Claim issue date 3 Jan 2025
- AOS Submitted 8 Jan 2025 at 13:54
- AOS Received 8 Jan 2025 at 16:05

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 5th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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 AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Thank you! 

I have accidentally started a defence on MCOL, am I okay to delete this? I haven’t submitted anything yet. 

Then don't submit anything via MCOL. Having filed an AoS, you have no need to submit anything further via MCOL.

As I said earlier...
      Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

cherryshaker

Thanks all, I’ll polish the above defence as suggested and submit! I’ll keep you posted. 

cherryshaker

Just as an update, I submitted the defence via email on the last day and received the auto acknowledgment, nothing further for now. 

Nellymoser

We've now 2 parking petitions open asking for Govt action. Would you sign both and share 🙏

• Introduce Regulation of Private Parking Practices

• Bring the Parking Code of Practice into law, as per the 2019 Act of Parliament

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?q=Private+parking+&state=recent

Good luck

cherryshaker

By way of update I received a letter from the court as acknowledgment of defence so we’ll wait and see now..