G24/DCB Legal PCN - CNBC Claim - Help with Defence Assistance Required

misterash

Hi everyone,

I have read through all the newbies thread and understood most of the process, and was hoping for some assistance with the dates and what date I have to submit defence via email?

I am currently writing up a defence against G24 / DCB Legal.

- Claim Form (Civil National Business Centre) issue date 19 Feb 2025

- DCB Legal representing G24.

- AOS submitted via MCOL 25/02/25

- I have done nothing else on MCOL, treating as read-only.

I am trying to calculate roughly what date I have until to submit my defence by email?

I am drafting up a defence against DCB using the second post on newbies thread and pretty much most of what was on this thread here.

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

Current draft below.

----

PoC: 
Particulars of Claim 1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 04/07/2024
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Failed TO Pay Your Parking Tarrif At
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 Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.03 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

Defence draft: (With personal details redacted)


IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

G24 Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXX                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

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, but NOT the driver at the time.

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 04/07/2024" (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.

4.     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 clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5.     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.


Then "Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government" onward has all been used from Coupon-Mads "Template Defense thread". All of it, including the links.

----------------

Many thanks

Gr1pr

Your deadline is 33 days later than the issue date,  but is actually Monday 24th March at 4pm

Paragraphs 2 & 3 look good to me 

misterash

Gr1pr said:

Your deadline is 33 days later than the issue date,  but is actually Monday 24th March at 4pm

Paragraphs 2 & 3 look good to me 

Ok many thanks. Is it best to submit the defence email early or wait closer to the deadline? Or no difference?

Gr1pr

No real difference,  but personally I would wait for any suggestions or improvements,  such as A possible paragraph 3.1

Clearly there is no rush at the moment , but definitely not at the last minute 

I will congratulate you on getting thus far without needing to be led,  it shows that reading and research are the keys to understanding your present position and what is required,  many others are frozen into the roadway at this point   ( think rabbits and headlights   )

Coupon-mad

Good defence unless you have something important to add about the circumstances such as unlit signs or that the driver DID pay the parking tariff, or maybe the app failed or the machines were not working...

What facts do you know about the PCN?

You could add here:

"Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, they were not the driver and paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied."

misterash

Coupon-mad said:

Good defence unless you have something important to add about the circumstances such as unlit signs or that the driver DID pay the parking tariff, or maybe the app failed or the machines were not working...

What facts do you know about the PCN?

You could add here:

"Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, they were not the driver and paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied."

Hi, many thanks,

I'm going to have a look at the parking site today, and take some pictures. My partner said there was no real legible signs there, and literally only there to pick someone up.

This car park is apparently notorious for this, so I am going to try go into more detail on the witness statement.

Coupon-mad

"only there to pick someone up."

That gets added, plus the quote of the definition of 'parking period' from the 2022 (withdrawn) DLUHC Parking Code of Practice.

Once you find that definition by googling, search this forum for the words and the word Defence.

Copy one...

misterash

Hi, I have done an updated draft. Is there anything I can tweak on this or add? Thanks

Second draft below.

 

----

PoC: 
Particulars of Claim 1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 04/07/2024
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Failed TO Pay Your Parking Tarrif At
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 Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.03 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

Defence draft: (With personal details redacted)


IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

G24 Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXX                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

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, but NOT the driver at the time.

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 04/07/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, they were not the driver and 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 vehicle was never parked and no "parking contract" supposedly offered by the Claimant was accepted or entered into by performance. The vehicle was only there to pick up a disabled person from the location.

3.2  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a Private Parking Code of Practice includes the following two points which highlight that dropping a passenger or picking them up is not considered parking:

2.19 parked/parking

an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain stationary other than in the course of driving (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers leave or enter the vehicle)

A vehicle may be deemed to be parked whether or not the driver has left the vehicle or turned off the ignition

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 (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle)

 

 

4.     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 clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5.     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.


Then "Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government" onward has all been used from Coupon-Mads "Template Defense thread". All of it, including the links.

Coupon-mad

You just need to put the quoted section from the DLUHC in inverted commas and italics, so it's clearly a quotation.

And because they allege there was a 'failure to pay' a parking fee, change this as shown:

4. The Claimant should reasonably concede that no financial loss to a parking operator can arise in a case where there was no 'parking period.' The fact that ANPR-using parking operators cannot tell which drivers actually park and leave a vehicle, as opposed to those drivers who don't, is the Claimant's problem caused by their choice to use remote cameras to run the cheapest regime possible. At most, the sum due could be under a pound but the simple fact is the Claimants cannot charge a driver anything in a case where there was no parking period. In order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

misterash

Coupon-mad said:

You just need to put the quoted section from the DLUHC in inverted commas and italics, so it's clearly a quotation.

And because they allege there was a 'failure to pay' a parking fee, change this as shown:

4. The Claimant should reasonably concede that no financial loss to a parking operator can arise in a case where there was no 'parking period.' The fact that ANPR-using parking operators cannot tell which drivers actually park and leave a vehicle, as opposed to those drivers who don't, is the Claimant's problem caused by their choice to use remote cameras to run the cheapest regime possible. At most, the sum due could be under a pound but the simple fact is the Claimants cannot charge a driver anything in a case where there was no parking period. In order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

Thank You. I amended previous draft with this and put the previous lines into italics and inverted commas.

I'm thinking of submitting defence by email by Friday.

misterash

Latest Draft

 

----

PoC: 
Particulars of Claim 1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 04/07/2024
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Failed TO Pay Your Parking Tarrif At
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 Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.03 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

Defence draft: (With personal details redacted)


IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

G24 Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXX                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

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, but NOT the driver at the time.

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 04/07/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, they were not the driver and 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 vehicle was never parked and no "parking contract" supposedly offered by the Claimant was accepted or entered into by performance. The vehicle was only there to pick up a disabled person from the location.

3.2  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, “a Private Parking Code of Practice includes the following two points which highlight that dropping a passenger or picking them up is not considered parking:

2.19 parked/parking

an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain stationary other than in the course of driving (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers leave or enter the vehicle)

A vehicle may be deemed to be parked whether or not the driver has left the vehicle or turned off the ignition

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 (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle)”

 

 

4. The Claimant should reasonably concede that no financial loss to a parking operator can arise in a case where there was no 'parking period.' The fact that ANPR-using parking operators cannot tell which drivers actually park and leave a vehicle, as opposed to those drivers who don't, is the Claimant's problem caused by their choice to use remote cameras to run the cheapest regime possible. At most, the sum due could be under a pound but the simple fact is the Claimants cannot charge a driver anything in a case where there was no parking period. 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 clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5.     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.

Then "Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government" onward has all been used from Coupon-Mads "Template Defense thread". All of it, including the links.

This is latest draft which I hope is ok to send.