Euro Car Parks / DCB Legal - Claim Defence

Troublesum1

Hello All,

Again, annoying to have to be back with yet another PCN but I'm again fairly confident about defending this claim. Mostly making this thread to document and make sure I don't overlook the obvious.

So this claim is as a result of a PCN I got from my gym carpark which operates a "whitelist" style parking. I'm sure I entered my vehicles details in the computer when I got to the gym but found myself with a ticket about a month or so later. I've just done the AOS now, the issue date of the claim is 06/02/2025 I believe that gives me till 14/03/2025 to submit a defence.

Currently I plan to mostly base my defence around the fact I did enter my vehicle details on to the whitelist for that period of parking and I have evidence of my attendance to the gym that day so there is no reason I would not have done that.

Any assistance or thoughts are welcome I will make sure to keep this thread updated!

KeithP

Troublesum1 said:

I've just done the AOS now, the issue date of the claim is 06/02/2025 I believe that gives me till 14/03/2025 to submit a defence.

You are mistaken with your Defence filing deadline. Don't know how you arrived at 14th March.

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 two 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'.

Coupon-mad

Show us the POC please.

In most current defences v DCB Legal claims, paragraph 3 (within the 30 paragraph Template Defence) in 2025 looks similar to the thread below by @shahib_02  ... just change the incident date:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

Then add 3.1 setting the scene and saying the Defendant always input their VRM at this gym but the keypad was unreliable and many gym members left due to unjustified fake 'fines'. State that either the Claimant's system failed or there may have been a keying error (again likely caused by the keypad, not by any poor conduct by the Defendant). There is no legitimate interest in punishing a patron of the premises as a result of a failure of the Claimant's system.

Troublesum1

As always many thanks @KeithP and @Coupon-mad - lifesavers

Here is the PoC:

Coupon-mad

I remember wording a similar para 3 the other month, pointing out that the alleged breach in the POC must be incorrect because there was no 'relevant obligation' to 'purchase' anything.

Troublesum1

Good evening All,

Will be submitting my defence tomorrow afternoon in accordance with the deadline, here's my paragraph 3:

3.1. The defendant parked in the area to visit their gym, included in their gym membership was the access to 3 hours free parking in the area upon registry of VRM to computer. The defendant parked and entered the gym where the computer resided and entered their vehicle registration to the computer. Defendant always input their VRM at this gym but the keypad was unreliable and many gym members left due to unjustified fake 'fines'. Either the Claimant’s system failed or there may have been a keying error (caused by the keypad and not by any poor conduct by the Defendant). There is no legitimate interest in punishing a patron of the premises as a result of a failure of the Claimant's system.

 

3.2. The defendant also notes that the alleged breach in the POC must be incorrect because there was no ‘relevant obligation’ to ‘purchase’ anything

Let me know if I'm missing anything obvious, thanks guys.

Coupon-mad

It'll do, although 3.2 would be better copied from the one already written (search!).

Troublesum1

Coupon-mad said:

It'll do, although 3.2 would be better copied from the one already written (search!).

Thanks coupon! Think I've found it:

It is further denied that there were any prominent additional 'contractual costs' which - like the amount of the parking charge - are not quantified in the POC.  Neither sum (whatever those sums might be) was agreed by conduct.  The Defendant denies breaching any 'relevant obligation or contract' and notes that the POC fail to state the breakdown of the various amount(s) sought, nor even the basis/dates/rate for the vague mention of 'interest'.  This bare statement in the generic POC - which quantifies nothing - is no way to properly plead a Moneyclaim: "The Claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.". The Claimant is not entitled to any sum at all.  the POC state no quantum breakdown at all.  A parking charge cannot be £170 yet that is the sum claimed.  There were no contractual damages or costs incurred because DCB Legal LTD are already claiming the maximum £50 legal costs that the MOJ has set as a cap (despite the fact that DCB have done minimal work, having only sent a LBC & boilerplate POC. There are no fees or costs for debt recovery incurred by this Claimant over and above the £50 cap.

Coupon-mad

No it's one with the word 'purchase'

Troublesum1

Coupon-mad said:

No it's one with the word 'purchase'

Ok think I got it now:

You should also add that it is denied that there was a contract as pleaded. There was no 'relevant obligation' for drivers attending the cinema to 'purchase' either a Pay & Display ticket or a Permit.  The vehicles of both drivers were exempted properly on the day and if the Claimant's system failed, they caused a frustration of contract.  No conduct of the Defendant breached any terms whatsoever.

Of course I would need to change mine to be for the gym:

There was no 'relevant obligation' for drivers attending the gym to 'purchase' either a Pay & Display ticket or a Permit.  The vehicles of both drivers were exempted properly on the day and if the Claimant's system failed, they caused a frustration of contract.  No conduct of the Defendant breached any terms whatsoever.

Thanks Coupon!

KeithP

Earlier this afternoon you wrote...

Troublesum1 said:

Will be submitting my defence tomorrow afternoon in accordance with the deadline...

Yet on 23 February at 11:22PM I wrote on your thread...

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.

Your Defence filing deadline is 4pm today, not tomorrow.