DCB Legal PCN - CNBC Claim - Parking Eye - Defence Assistance required Please

Torrel

Hello.


I am currently writing up a defence - below is my draft defence.

I have copied heavily from template defence and shahib_02 post who has done a good template for DCB Legal claims up. Thank you!


- Claim Form (Civil National Business Centre) issue date 18 Mar 25. 
- DCB Legal representing Parking Eye
- AoS submitted via MCOL 27 Mar 25


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 08/03/2022
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Vehicle Remained On Pirvate Prroperty in Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions./
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 £.01 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

Defence draft: (With personal details redacted)


IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

ParkingEye Ltd (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').

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:

Link to the two authorities: Chan_Akande

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. 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 and driver.

6.     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 20/03/2023" (the date of the alleged visit). Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of any specific, prominent, or unambiguous term.

It is unclear what term the Claimant alleges was breached. The signage does not specify a time limit for payment completion when using Good2Go, and the POC fail to outline any contractual clause that was violated. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the precise term that was allegedly breached. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land), and no damages were incurred whatsoever.

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

6.1         The Defendant entered the ### car park at approximately 09:20 on 08/03/2022. Upon returning to the vehicle around 17:35 on 08/03/2022, the Defendant attempted to pay the £12 parking fee at the meter. However, a notice on the machine stated it was not functioning for credit card payments. The machine did not accept notes, and the Defendant did not have £12 in coins.

The signage at the car park ambiguously stated: “At the payment machine at any time before exiting the car park – your full, correct vehicle registration will be required OR via good2go.” The wording implies that payment could be made via Good2Go as an alternative to paying at the machine. However, it did not clearly specify a required timeframe for completing the online payment before exiting the car park. This vague phrasing is misleading and fails to inform the driver of any specific time restriction related to using the Good2Go service.

Additionally, the Good2Go Terms and Conditions (see attached) confirm that the service is intended to facilitate payment for parking without requiring physical payment at the machine. The relevant T&Cs establish that payment is processed through an automated billing system once the account balance is topped up, which occurred successfully in this instance. The terms and conditions do not specify a timeframe for payment.

Due to poor signal at the car park, online payment was no viable. Therefore, the Defendant made note of the Good2Go URL and exited the car park at 17:39:04, proceeding to a nearby restaurant to create an account and pay the £12. As evidenced by the attached confirmation email, the account creation process was completed at 17:50 08/03/2022 (see attached), and payment was successfully made at 18:06:52 on 08/03/2022 (see attached).

No attempt was made to avoid payment, and the £12 paid was sufficient to cover parking until 09:30 on 09/03/2022. A follow-up phone call was made the following day to inquire about the receipt needed for work purposes, during which the Defendant was assured that everything had been done correctly, and no fine would be issued. This assurance was later confirmed by an email received on 11/03/2025, stating that as this was the Defendant’s first visit, the processing time could take 3-14 days and that the visit would be free. (see attached)

The £12 paid remains unrefunded, despite the Claimant's pursuit of additional fees. As the Claimant has already taken payment for the parking service without providing a refund. The claimant’s dispute is not about whether payment was made or its timeliness but rather the location of the vehicle at the time of payment, which should be irrelevant given the Defendant’s compliance with the online payment process and the fee paid covering the duration that the vehicle was not located in the car park.

7. 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.

8. 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.

1505grandad

"Reason:Vehicle Remained On Pirvate Prroperty in Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions./"

If there is no actual breach stated you should use the Chan and Akande cases Defence  -  see Template Defence sticky (1st post)

Coupon-mad

You seem to have missed the defence for DCB Legal ParkingEye claims, where the start is different?

It's in the Template Defence first post.

This is wrong for your case too:

"UK Parking Control Limited"

Torrel

Thanks for the feedback.

I have edited the post and made the changes you have outlined. 

Is there anything else I need to add?

Coupon-mad

Show us your facts para 6.

Torrel

I have included the full terms and conditions for 'Good to go Parking' and the parking sign on a dropbox link here.

In defence I will included the receipt of payment from the time specified, and a confirmation of the creation of the account on the time specified. I haven't attached them as they speak for themselves.

Two email chains below. I have made a few notes in bold and brackets. Some of the original emails where written a little in anger! (sorry)


First Email

Message:

Hi, I parked in a good2go car park on 8th March.
Trickled Triut Services, Preston New Road, Samlesbury, Preston, PR5 0UJ.

The machine wasn't working so I used this website. I still haven't been charged and no one answers your phone.

Why do I get the impression you are a scam company that purposely makes it impossible to pay so you can hand out fines that I am sure I will get regardless of doing everything in my power to pay your extortionate £12 parking charge because the hotel car park was full while I was there for a meeting!?

Reply:
The good2go account is another option of making payment for parking. Instead of paying at the kiosk, register and activate the account before you leave, as you would if making payment at the kiosk.

On completion of the above, your first visit with good2go is free.Subsequent visits take 3 – 14  working days to show on your account and will be debited from your chosen method of payment.

There is no requirement for you to do anything as the system will calculate the correct tariff and debit the good2go account accordingly.

Kind Regards
The good2go Team



Second Email

Message:

I received a fine for £100 today, despite making an account, topping it up. Calling your several times and emailing you.

All saying I will not receive a fine and the money simply takes a few days to come out. All of this was a lie to fine me.

The machine did not work, and I have done everything in my power based on your advise to give you the £12 required for parking.

You will immediately issue a apology and written withdrawal of the fine!

Reply:

Good Morning,

I note the signage at Tickled Trout Services BP states the following:

How to Pay

At the payment machine at any time before exiting the car park – your full correct vehicle registration will be required, or via good2go clever car parks. (Please see attached signage)

You exited the car park at 08/03/2022 17:39:04, but not register for the good2go account until 08/03/2022 18:04:42.  (My activation emails shows 17:50)

You can appeal the charge with ParkingEye direct in the post or through www.parkingeye.co.uk/appeal or through the post at the address below:

Message:

Exactly! Read your own terms and conditions! 

At the payment machine at any time before exiting the car park – your full correct vehicle registration will be required, or via good2go clever car parks. (Please see attached signage)

Definition of Or - used to link alternatives.

An alternative, so I can pay before I leave the car par on the machie OR pay online. It does not say of via good2go before you leave the car park. It says pay via good2go! Your own T&C on the website does not say before leaving the car park.

Your machine was out of order for card payments, I do not have £12 in pound coins in my wallet!

According to your site the first one is free anyway!

Your invoice is illegal and exploitation and I will not be paying it! 

I paid online!! I even called to ask and was told the £12 would be taken in a few days a I would not receive a fine! I have given you the £12. 

Would you say £4.16 is an acceptable amount for every 60 seconds of supposed late payment? Would you also say 24 minuets is an unacceptable amount of time to wait until paying? Your own company claim to not take payment for 72 hours and think this is acceptable. However for customers take 24 minutes and you issue an invoice. They money was in the account before you would have taken payment anyway. Its a semantic game to exploit customers. Please see mine below. 

For every 1 minuet this issue goes unresolved from 12am 18/03/22 will invoice you £4.16 penalty. Please can I have a convenient billing address?

(Not sure I can claim this, it would mean the current owe me 6.6 million, lol)

Reply:

Good Morning,

Unfortunately, you registered after leaving the car park.

Time exited from the car Park:                    08/03/2022 17:39:04
Time good2go account was registered    08/03/2022 18:04:42  (My activation Emails show 17:50)

This is 24 minutes later; registration is required whilst still in the car park. As you have not conformed with the T&C’s, a charge has been issued.

Message:

Hello, 

Your 'company' seemed to be happy to accept the £12 payment on my Good2Go account from 08/03/2022 18:04:42.

Interesting side point, the £12 I paid would cover my stay for 24 hours. So I revived a £100 invoice for the £12 I HAVE PAID within the allotted 24 hours allowed for that amount. 

The argument here isn't if I paid the correct amount (£12) within the 24 hours allowed within the £12 payment duration. It the physical location on my vehicle when I paid it.

Your own terms and conditions state OR as an alternative with no mention of duration linked to that portion of the sign. Can I ask, does your company have a problem with the English language or is the sign intentionally incorrect/deceptive?

Your company and you personally are being difficult in order to exploit moneys in the way in supposed fines.

Thanks for looking at it! Think I need to submit defence soon, not sure on exact date?

Coupon-mad

Here's the sign:

You are right that it doesn't say that good2go can only be activated while still in the car park ... but it is common sense that you can't register afterwards because how far in the past would you expect it to trawl?

HOWEVER I am on your side and your para 6 will be about paying £12 to park (if you did pay?) and that the sign is ambiguous at best.

Torrel

Yes, you wouldn't expect it to be indefinite, but you would think that it would at least be up to the maximum stay time of the car park.

I don't think 10-20 minutes is unreasonable. 

Yes I did pay, I have a receipt showing the payment and account activation time. I just haven't posted as it's got a lot of personal info on. 

Coupon-mad

Then they have no cause of action. No loss, they know you paid £12 for that session. There's no commercial justification to pursue £100. This'll be easy to defend.

Torrel

Does the defence look OK to submit then?

Coupon-mad

Yes if you add paragraph numbers.