Not inside the lines

Car1980

I'd just cut it down as you're getting into witness statement territory. Also fine to start stating that the defendant and the driver are the same. It'll be discontinued anyway, but try this:

3. The claimant states that the defendant's vehicle was slightly over the white lines. It is submitted that the bulk claim is so trifling and ridiculous that it amounts to de minimis and is complete waste of the court's time.

In any case, the signage the claimant relies upon on site is in such miniscule text and installed 8 feet up in the air that it is highly insufficient. No motorist could be said to have have agreed and entered into, let alone breached, such a poorly designed and illegible contract. In addition, the signs were only present on alternate rows of bays and not present at all in the row where the defendant parked.

still_savin

Here's the redacted PoC

still_savin

Okay I'm now ready to do my defence and going to take para's 1,2, and 4-8 from the template defence thread, but I don't think I understand the difference between what is 'defence' and what is 'evidence' for my WS. What do I need to put in para 3 that ISN'T my WS info please?

1505grandad

Perhaps adapt the para in the following post (the claim was discontinued by the claimant):-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81339051/#Comment_81339051

still_savin

1505grandad said:

Perhaps adapt the para in the following post (the claim was discontinued by the claimant):-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81339051/#Comment_81339051

Thanks for that link - it isn't a thread I've previously read. Although Shahib's PoC is similar to mine inasmuch as we are both 'outside the lines' claims, the abbreviated defence in that thread doesn't mention anyting about marked bays or lines. However @Coupon-mad obviously thought it was okay as she posted that it was a perfect defence, so I'm now confused as to whether to use the template defence with a custom para 3, or the much smaller version in Shahib's thread. 

AH, EDIT! I've just reread and comprehended the last para in bold on that thread, where it says that the Template Defence thread is then added AS WELL as the text in the post. 

Umkomaas

I wouldn't analyse the inner workings of the elephant's backside too much on this. As it's UKPC and DCB Legal involved, your case is never going to appear before any judge in this land. They will do what they've always done ..... discontinue!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1 

Gr1pr

As above,  study similar cases, like this one below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6574573/dcb-legal-letter-of-claim-parking-outside-the-lines/p1

But your POC will say contravention,  not Issued,  so study recent DCB Legal cases for the correct wording for that paragraph,  especially because the shahib thread is old enough to say Issued,  whereas they changed their POC over 6 months ago 

You should be using the new template defence,  adapting just a few paragraphs to suit,  plagiarised from similar recent cases and using the details in YOUR OWN POC

still_savin

Gr1pr said:

As above,  study similar cases, like this one below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6574573/dcb-legal-letter-of-claim-parking-outside-the-lines/p1

But your POC will say contravention,  not Issued,  so study recent DCB Legal cases for the correct wording for that paragraph,  especially because the shahib thread is old enough to say Issued,  whereas they changed their POC over 6 months ago 

You should be using the new template defence,  adapting just a few paragraphs to suit,  plagiarised from similar recent cases and using the details in YOUR OWN POC

Thank you for pointing that out - I'd not noticed the distinction between contravention and issued, which seemed to be just an arbitrary choice of wording, I've certainly not seen any thread mentioning any significance in changed phraseology! 

I've read that case previously and noted the similarities. Okay, my new Para 3 then is 

"No PCN was "issued on xx/xx/xxxx (the date of the alleged visit), and so denying the defendant of any opportunity to provide their own evidence. 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."



In doing that, I've abandoned any reference to the lack of clarity of the term "parked within a marked bay", but if my reading of the advice given is correct then that is for my Witness Statement at a later point in time.

The rest of my defence is Para 1, 2, and 4 to 10 of the Template Defence. 

Gr1pr

Threads highlighting the difference in the legal wording are early threads from this year, before May 2025

Your defence should rebut the POC in the claim form,  so mainly based on the July 2025 template defence,  which superceded the older template 

still_savin

Gr1pr said:

Threads highlighting the difference in the legal wording are early threads from this year, before May 2025

Your defence should rebut the POC in the claim form,  so mainly based on the July 2025 template defence,  which superceded the older template 

I find myself apologising again as I think I'm back to disappearing down a rabbit hole trying to understand what to write. I have posted the redacted PoC for my claim earlier in the thread and I wrote my Para 3 and 4 as

3. The alleged breach relates to not parking fully within the bay markings. However, the vehicle was only marginally outside of the bay due to the adjacent space being occupied by a car which had itself encroached across the line. To avoid damage to that vehicle or difficulty exiting, the driver made a practical and reasonable adjustment. The encroachment lasted only 3–4 minutes while collecting a heavy sack of dog food from Pets At Home, and the Claimant's own photograph shows the adjacent car had already left and that the car park was nearly empty, with many spaces available. The sums claimed are wildly disproportionate, and there is no legitimate commercial interest in justifying a penalty-style charge, contrary to what the courts were trying to uphold in Parking Eye v Beavis.
4. In addition, signs indicating conditions of parking were only on alternate rows of bays and not present at all in the row where the driver parked. It is denied that the driver could see one of the signs and agreed to any conditions on it. Where the signs are present, the conditions state "All vehicles must be parked within a marked bay", which implies that the condition only relates to ensuring that vehicles do not park elsewhere on the site other than in bays: it does not make clear that the condition means that no part of a vehicle may be over the edge of any bay, which the claimant now claims in the statement "Not Parked Correctly Within The Markings Of The Bay Or Space". 

I'm simply asking if that is okay or not.