Defence Feedback Needed – PCN Hanworth Road Hounslow- DCB Legal and Euro Car Park

Srinathuk

Hi all,

I’ve received a county court claim regarding a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued at Hanworth Road, Hounslow. The claim states that although I paid for 3 hours of parking, I allegedly overstayed by 17 minutes.

Key details:

• Date of PCN: February 2023

• Alleged breach: Stayed 3 hours and 17 minutes despite paying for 3 hours

• Claimant’s basis:

• ANPR cameras recorded entry and exit times

• Pursued as the driver for breach of contract, or alternatively as the keeper under POFA 2012

• Amount claimed:

• £170 for the PCN and “damages”

• £35 court fee

• £50 legal representative costs

• Total: £283

• Interest: 8% per annum under the County Courts Act 1984 at a daily rate of £0.04 until judgment/payment

Concerns with the claim:

• The claimant admits I paid for 3 hours, yet they are pursuing the claim for a minor overstay.

• The ANPR evidence does not show a full image of my car, only the number plate.

• The timestamps are not embedded in the ANPR images but are instead presented separately as plain text.

I have already submitted AoS and drafted a defence as below, 

=====================================================================

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxx

Between

Euro Car Parks Ltd (Claimant)

• and -

XXXXX (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 contractual term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (who is merely an agent of the landowner) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is relying on 'keeper liability' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

The facts known to the Defendant:

1. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. The Defendant is the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. The Defendant parked in the Hanworth Road car park on 08/02/2023 and paid for a valid parking session covering three hours. However, upon returning to the vehicle, the Defendant discovered a tyre issue that required immediate attention. Due to safety and security concerns, as the car park was partially lit and isolated close to midnight, the Defendant and his wife sought to leave as quickly as possible.

2. The Claimant asserts that the vehicle entered at 19:49:32 and exited at 23:06:25. The Defendant neither admits nor accepts the accuracy of this data. The entry and exit markings at the site were unclear, contributing to ambiguity regarding precise arrival and departure times. Additionally, the layout of the car park required payment to be made at machines located at the far end, with all machines centralized in one area, further affecting any alleged timing calculations.

3.1. The ANPR evidence provided by the Claimant does not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (Clause 20.5). The BPA requires that ANPR systems provide clear, reliable, and indisputable evidence of parking events. The images in the PCN only show the number plates but fail to provide a full image of the vehicle with the number plate and timestamp in the same frame. The failure to produce fully compliant evidence raises serious concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the ANPR system, making it impossible to verify that any alleged period of parking occurred as stated.

3.2. Regarding the POC, the Particulars of Claim fail to meet the requirements of CPR 16.4, 16PD3, and 16PD7 as they do not "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action." The Defendant is unable to ascertain the precise allegations and cost breakdown, making it difficult to respond.

3.3. It appears that the Defendant is being penalised for getting entrapped by the infamously hidden '5-minute rule' which has been in the national news this week. The parking industry Trade Bodies have both recognised - only after the matter was raised in both Houses of Parliament - that such a term is unfair on paying drivers and this conduct has been swiftly banned. To hold a consumer liable for an unknown '5-minute time limit' hidden term is arguably a 'misleading omission' (ref: the CPUTRs 2008), which is an offence - an unfair commercial practice - by this Claimant.

3.4. As well as being an offence, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 a charge arising under a hidden term that places an unfair burden on the consumer is unrecoverable, so the Claimant cannot be heard to say "well it wasn't unfair last year." That would be absurd, especially given that this same Claimant is the notorious ex-wheel-clamper responsible for the cases highlighted by BBC News (including well-publicised claims against Rosey Hudson - a £1900 claim - and Hannah Robinson - a £11,000 claim) all of which occurred around the same months and under the same "you paid too late" desperately rogue practice approach as in the extant case. Excel Parking has confirmed to irate MPs that all cases have been dropped in recent weeks due to the adverse publicity. One wonders why they think they can pursue this one.

1. 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.

1. 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.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

1. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap). It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

2. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

3. 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).

4. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022: link

5. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The then Government's analysis is found here: link

6. 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).

7. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules. Further, claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3): link

Conclusion

1. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm. The July 2023 Government IA analysis shows that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it. The claim itself relies on an unfair charge which is entirely without merit, and should be dismissed.

2. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks: (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and (b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed: _____________________

Date:

=====================================================================

and would appreciate feedback before submission. Has anyone successfully defended a similar case, particularly regarding grace periods, ANPR accuracy, or unfair charges? Any advice on strengthening my defence would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

Yes it's common to win on lack of fair consideration and grace periods. But even more commonly, DCB Legal discontinue!

I'd remove this:

"The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that"

You've not used the usual full paragraph seen in the thread by @shahib_02  so you've missed out saying that the POC are fundamentally wrong because no PCN was 'issued' on the date stated.

And by chopping out lots of the Template Defence you seem to have completely omitted these two points:

1. unclear signs (£100 was buried in small print);

2. challenging them to prove landowner authority

(both are in the middle/later part of the Template Defence.  I encourage people to alter it - if confident to do so, like yourself - but not if omitting entire points that could win it later).

KeithP

Srinathuk said:
I’ve received a county court claim...
I have already submitted AoS... 

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Srinathuk

@KeithP - the issue date is Feb 6th and I filed the AoS on 17 Feb.

KeithP

Srinathuk said:

@KeithP - the issue date is Feb 6th and I filed the AoS on 17 Feb.

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 just a few days away but plenty of time to produce a Defence.

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'.

Srinathuk

Apologies for not being precise @Coupon-mad . Below is the portion which i added from my end. . I had made the correction to £170 from £283 as it is in the template defence. need your advise on this whether it will make sense to add this in my defence.

============================================================================

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 08/02/2023" (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 is the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. The Defendant parked in the Hanworth Road car park on 08/02/2023 and paid for a valid parking session covering three hours. However, upon returning to the vehicle, the Defendant discovered a tyre issue that required immediate attention. Due to safety and security concerns, as the car park was partially lit and isolated close to midnight, the Defendant and his wife sought to leave as quickly as possible.

3.2 The Claimant asserts that the vehicle entered at 19:49:32 and exited at 23:06:25. The Defendant neither admits nor accepts the accuracy of this data. The entry and exit markings at the site were unclear, contributing to ambiguity regarding precise arrival and departure times. Additionally, the layout of the car park required payment to be made at machines located at the far end, with all machines centralized in one area, further affecting any alleged timing calculations.

3.3  The ANPR evidence provided by the Claimant does not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (Clause 20.5). The BPA requires that ANPR systems provide clear, reliable, and indisputable evidence of parking events. The images in the PCN only show the number plates but fail to provide a full image of the vehicle with the number plate and timestamp in the same frame. The failure to produce fully compliant evidence raises serious concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the ANPR system, making it impossible to verify that any alleged period of parking occurred as stated.

Coupon-mad

I'd just add to your defence that the minutes either side of the parking period are not chargeable minutes and are not 'parking' at all. Cite the DLUHC 2022 Code of Practice definition of parking period.

Srinathuk

Sure @Coupon-mad - I will delete the long defence as you advised after my defence submission.

Have drafted the below addition to my defence. Kindly share your comments
===============================================================================

3.4 Furthermore, the minutes immediately before and after the parking period are not chargeable and do not constitute "parking." The DLUHC 2022 Code of Practice defines the "parking period" as the time during which the vehicle is stationary and parked, explicitly excluding the time spent entering and exiting the parking area. Any charge that includes these non-parking minutes is therefore not valid. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the alleged contravention occurred within a chargeable parking period, as defined by the Code.

===============================================================================

Coupon-mad

You'd be better copying one somebody already wrote that fully quotes the definition.  Several defences are findable by searching for some words from that definition.

Srinathuk

Thanks @Coupon-mad. I have sent the defence on 10th March and got the acknowledgement as below. But the MCOL status says they received on 12th March. Can you kindly advise on what should i do because as per @KeithP - the defence should be sent before 11th March 4 PM GMT.
====================================================================================

Auto Reply - Claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk

Inbox

ClaimResponses.CNBC

Mon, Mar 10, 5:41 PM (2 days ago)

to me

Thank you for emailing the Claim Responses Team in the Civil National Business Centre. Please expect a response to your enquiry in 10 days

====================================================================================

However, when i checked the MCOL. It says the defence is received on 12th March.

Below is what it says,
====================================================================================
Claim History

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 17/02/2025 at 09:35:51

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 17/02/2025 at 12:05:24

Your defence was received on 12/03/2025

====================================================================================

KeithP

Nothing to worry about.

Firstly, you have an auto reply confirming that your Defence was received by the CNBC on Monday 10th March - albeit after 5pm so deemed delivered on the next working day - Tuesday 11th March.

Secondly, it may have been technically possible for the Claimant to seek a Default Judgment sometime after 4pm on Tuesday 11th March, but they weren't awake enough to to that.

Thirdly, even if they had obtained that Default Judgment, that would have been easily undone as you are able to show that the Defence was filed on time.

As I said... you have nothing to worry about.