Parking Eye DCB Legal Court Claim 2025

Gr1pr

Study the second post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum 

Login to your government gateway account and get the AOS done after navigating to MCOL,  on Monday night or Tuesday,  just to get past 5 days

Start drafting your defence based on the template defence,  after studying a few recent Parking Eye DCB Legal court claim cases,  but only those from this year,  so within the last 3 months 

Coupon-mad

You just use the 'DCB Legal ParkingEye case' template defence which is linked in the FIRST POST of the Template Defence thread. Easy!

protein1011

Hi Everyone, quick update. I have done my AoS today online via Government Gateway, which is now completed. Im assuming it's now my time to make my defence. I have started reading around the NEWBIE threads and have created a draft defence.  I used the Parking Eye specific template, added my Facts Known to defendant and then added the remainder from the normal defence template. The more ive read the threads, the more I have realised that under POFA its obvs hard for these guys to do anything, which makes me think I should have used that earlier on and that could possibly have cleared them off? They didn't respond to my original email for this claim asking for 30 days, but still sent me this claim form. However, I have another claim with them which they have emailed confirming my 30 day extension under PAP. I know ill have to fight this claim, but for the claim with the 30 day extension is there any way now that I can use the POFA to get rid of them early on and prevent the headache lol. Appreciate the help, will post the defence now for feedback 

protein1011

This is the defence, let me know what you guys think thank you again!!!

. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. 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.  

6. Referring to the POC: Paragraph 1 is denied. The defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The POC incorrectly claims that a PCN was issued on 26/04/2024 (date of the alleged visit), however, no such PCN was ever issued. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The defendant (registered keeper of vehicle) is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms and conditions. The Defendant also denies being the driver and does not accept that the Claimant has established Keeper Liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  The quantum claimed is grossly exaggerated. The sum appears to be an arbitrary and inflated figure, bearing no relation to any genuine pre-estimate of loss or actual damages incurred, of which there were none. It is an abuse of process to add an extra sum to the original charge without justification, contrary to the ruling in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court made clear that additional sums not detailed in the initial parking charge are likely to be unenforceable. The claimant is put to strict proof of all allegations, including: the alleged contractual breach, compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 if seeking to hold the Defendant liable as the registered keeper, the legitimacy of the sum claimed providing a detailed breakdown of how the charge was calculated. 

protein1011

Just for context, i was the registered keeper but not driver alone. Obvs I did not know about POFA before reading more into the thread etc hence didn't include earlier on. Just tryna think of ways to make them discontinue early on with the other claim 

Coupon-mad

POFA means almost nothing in your case. ParkingEye are likely to have complied with it and can hold you liable as keeper.

Remove all this which is not correct and has no legs:

 The quantum claimed is grossly exaggerated. The sum appears to be an arbitrary and inflated figure, bearing no relation to any genuine pre-estimate of loss or actual damages incurred, of which there were none. It is an abuse of process to add an extra sum to the original charge without justification, contrary to the ruling in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court made clear that additional sums not detailed in the initial parking charge are likely to be unenforceable.

protein1011

Hi Coupon, thank you for your feedback. I have re-edited it below and attached it. Would you be able to check it over for me please, is there anything else that needs changing? Am I right in thinking next step is to sign, scan as PDF and send? 

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').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out.

2. 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

Coupon-mad

Looks fine but please delete paras 5 onwards from this thread as it drives us mad to be inflicted with our own template wording & expected to read all 30 paragraphs. It's like groundhog day on every thread!

1505grandad

Just checking  -  the PoC state ".....£140 being the total of the PCN and damages"

What was the original pcn amount?

protein1011

Great thanks. I have read about emailing the defence over, is this something I have to do. Or can I just upload it to the online MCOL platform where it says submit defence?