Free Gym Parking - DCB Legal Court Claim - Defence help

Chanjames

Hi everyone, 

I have received a claim form on 10th Feb 2025 from DCB legal for a parking event that happened in Aug 2020. 

Claim Form Details
Issue date 06 Feb 2025
AOS response online - 14 Feb 2025
POC - Reason: No Valid Pay and Display/permit was purchased 
Claimant: Euro Car Parks Ltd 
Solicitor - DCB legal 


Background 
PCN was issued back in Aug 2020 for 'no Pay and Display/permit was purchased' at my Gym car Park which is located within facility managed by Euro Car Parks Ltd. As a member of the Gym, I get two hours of free parking as long as I have put VRN into a tablet at the gym. 

I moved to a new address in 2019 and forgot to inform DVLA of this.. Then what happened was PCN letters had been sent to my old address and I only found out of the PCN in Dec 2020. I made an appeal to Euro Car Parks twice but they refused to correspond because the PCN had been forwarded to a debt collector. I contacted Debt recovery plus and explained and submitted proof of my membership and my Gym usage logs on the day of parking event to them but got rejected. 


This forum has been really helpful so thank you for all the contributions.  

I am now in process of preparing my defence and seeking help and advice before I file my defence. I have done lots of research and read through the Newbies discussion and other threads similar to mine. Below is my defence draft. 

Thanks in advance everyone for all the help.  

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: 

Between

Euro Car Parks Limited

(Claimant)

- and -

(Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

 

1.      The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. 

2.      The Defendant is the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3.      The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver’s alleged breach of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or to form contracts in their own name at the location.  

Background - the registered keeper was an authorised patron of the onsite business

4.      The Defendant was at the premises of Cardinal Retail Park for the purpose of visiting the Gym group, a gym facility within the premises for which the Defendant had a membership.

4.1  The Defendant denies the allegation stated in the Particulars of Claim that ‘no valid Pay and Display/permit was purchased’. To the Defendant’s knowledge being a patron of the Gym Group, there was no payment made nor required as the Defendant has full contractual and legal right to park at the Cardinal Retail Car Park for a maximum of 2 hours through an agreement between the Gym Group and landlord via Euro Car Parks Limited. Therefore, the alleged breach is impossible, rendering the parking charge void and this claim meritless.

4.2  The Defendant has proof of patronage in the form of facility access logs obtained from the facility’s online “Member Area”. The Defendant has already proved that patronage and authorisation to park, and it is the Claimant’s own failure to acknowledge this fact.

5.      This is a Failure of CRA 2015 as nothing is offered as a parking contract. Permission for the Defendant to park is from the Gym as contract is with them as a Paid Member.

6.      The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong ‘legitimate interest’ extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(ii). ‘adequate notice’ of the penalty clasue’ charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

7.      The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

No legitimate interest - the penalty rule remains engaged

8.      The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices in these circumstances, and to pursue payment in the court in their own name. Even if they hold such authority, the Claimant is put to strict proof that this authorisation expressly allows litigation against patrons.

9.       Even if the Claimant is able to produce such a landowner contract, it is averred that there can be no legitimate interest arguable by the Claimant in this case. When - all too often at this location – Euro Car Parks Limited unfairly harvest the data of a registered keeper to charge a genuine patron, any commercial justification in the form of landowner support for such unfair ticketing is de facto absent.

10.  Further, there was no overstay nor any mischief to deter, nor was there any misuse of a valuable parking space by the Defendant, whose car was parked in good faith, not in contravention nor causing an obstruction, and was certainly not 'unauthorised'. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant's claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

11.  This case is fully distinguished in all respects from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. That Supreme Court decision sets a high bar for parking firms, not a blanket precedent, and the Beavis case essentially turned on a 'complex' and compelling legitimate interest and very clear notices, where the terms were held not to involve any lack of good faith or 'concealed pitfall or trap'. Completely unlike the instant case.

12.  In addition, there can be no cause of action in a parking charge case without a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' (the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 refers).

13.  This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach. The Supreme Court Judges in Beavis held that a Code of Practice is effectively 'regulation' for this blatantly rogue industry, full compliance with which is both mandatory and binding upon any parking operator.

14.  The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land. At this location, the Claimant has failed on all counts and the data gathered about patrons of the site is unconscionable and excessive, given the lack of transparency about the risk of a charge for failing to do something that the driver never knew was a requirement.

Inflation of the parking charge and double recovery - an abuse of process

15.   This claim inflates the total charges in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process. It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. Thus, there can be no 'costs' to pile on top of any parking charge claim.

16.  In addition to the original penalty, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported legal costs of £50, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA, a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent by legally qualified staff on actually preparing the claim and/or the cost of obtaining advice for that specific claim, in a legal capacity.

17.  The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA, a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent by legally qualified staff on actually preparing the claim and/or the cost of obtaining advice for that specific claim, in a legal capacity.

18.  Many informed Court Court Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts, such as these cases, struck out in recent months without a hearing, due solely to the pretence of adding 'damages' blatantly made up out of thin air.

(a) In Claim number F0DP163T on 11th July 2019, District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court at Southampton, struck out a overly inflated (over the £100 maximum Trade Body and POFA 2012 ceiling) parking firm claim without a hearing for that reason.

(b) In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) where the abuse is inherent in the business model.

19.  This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

20.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022: link will be inserted as user is not allowed to post links yet

The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

21.   Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found here: link will be inserted as user is not allowed to post links yet

22.  Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

23.  It is denied that the added damages/fee sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a PCN to £135 exaggerated the cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

24.  In summary, this Claimant has not incurred costs. A PCN model already includes what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' and it generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and £85 was held to more than cover the minor costs of the operation (NB: debt collectors charge nothing in failed collection cases).

25.  The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gr1pr

Post a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left of the claim form after hiding the VRM details first 

Check that issue date in the POC,  probably incorrect , like dozens of other threads on here recently 

Only post your paragraphs that you changed from the template defence,  typically paragraphs 2 and 3 and 3.1, not the rest of it 

1505grandad

As above  -  also make sure you are using the LATEST Defence template which does not include this:-

"...(understood to have a bare licence as managers)..."

Chanjames

Sorry, I should've not included the rest of the template. 

In the POC it states that PCN was issued on 01/08/2020 but the date of issue of the original PCN is 10/08/2020

Gr1pr

So use the paragraph 3 numbered rebuttal as seen in recent dcb legal threads on here,  within the last 3 months, because clearly the POC are incorrect 

Post 2, 3 and any 3.1 below for checking 

Only use the template defence in announcements,  once your draft is approved,  because all of it is used

Coupon-mad

Yep. The above isn't the Template Defence.

And para 3 should be the one in all other DCB Legal Euro Car Parks Claim threads in 2025. No links needed. Scroll or search the forum. Copy!

KeithP

Chanjames said:

Claim Form Details
Issue date 06 Feb 2025
AOS response online - 14 Feb 2025

With a Claim Issue Date of 6th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over three 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 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'.

Chanjames

Thank you all for your responses. 

I will use the Template Defence 

For paragraph 3, I've done further reading and in my understanding -  as my case (incorrect POC) is the same as most DCB/ECP cases, then all I need to put is the below? Also, do I need to mention in Para 3 that I am a member of the Gym and that I am allowed 2-hrs free parking? 

3.  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 01/08/2020” (the date of the alleged visit). Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. 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.

 

 

Chanjames

Hi All,

What do you think of my draft defence below? Could you please let me know if there's anything I need to add or mention or delete before I submit my defence via email? 

Thank you again in advance 🙏

1.      The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

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.

3.      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 01/08/2020” (the date of the alleged visit). Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. 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 Defendant denies the allegation stated in paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim that ‘no valid Pay and Display/permit was purchased’. To the Defendant’s knowledge being a patron of the Gym Group, there was no payment made nor required as the Defendant has full contractual and legal right to park at the Cardinal Retail Car Park for a maximum of 2 hours through an agreement between the Gym Group and landlord via Euro Car Parks Limited. Therefore, the alleged breach is impossible, rendering the parking charge void and this claim meritless. 

Chanjames

@Coupon-mad @Gr1pr @KeithP @1505grandad

Le_Kirk

Looks like the standard defence to  DC Legal claim with the addition of your paragraph 3.1 so looks good from my point of view.