DCB Legal Court Claim

Happylarry88

Hi, can anyone please offer me some help/advice? 

I have read through the newbie thread a few times in relation to this ongoing parking ticket and I have been trying to follow the advice as best as possible. 

In short, I received a parking ticket from Euro car park limited that I did not receive as I was not living at the address they sent the parking fine letters to (my car is registered at the address as it is my family home) and post where I was living was being stolen at the time/posted in the wrong mailbox (it was a flat). When I recieved the letter notifying me of this from DCB limited (over a year later) I followed the advice on the thread and I did not reply, in hopes they would go away. I have since recieve a county court claim from DCB legal. This was issued on 26 March 2025. 

The parking charge was issued on 20/07/2022 and if I’m honest I have no recollection of this incident or who was driving (this was a shared car that I am the registered keeper of). 

I will submit the AOS this week and I have started to prepare my defence to send to CCBC. Can someone please help me strengthen my defence? I have used the template provided but have tried to tweak to align with my case: 

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. The facts parking notice is from 2022 and the car the claim has been issued for was a shared car hence the defendant does not recall who was driving the car. 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. 

3. The Defendant acknowledges that they were the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident, but denies liability for the charge. The alleged breach, claiming that the vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed, occurred on 10/07/2022. However, the Defendant is unable to recall who was driving the vehicle on that specific date, and therefore cannot confirm or deny whether the vehicle was parked beyond the stipulated time limit. The Defendant asserts that mere ownership or registration of the vehicle does not establish liability, particularly when the driver is not identified, and no clear evidence has been presented by the Claimant to prove the identity of the driver or the circumstances of the alleged parking breach. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim fail to provide any specific details regarding the length of the overstay or the signage present, which would be necessary to establish that the Defendant (or any other individual) was indeed in breach of the parking terms. In the absence of this evidence, the Defendant denies any liability for the charge and questions the legitimacy of the Claimant’s claim, particularly given the uncertainty surrounding both the identity of the driver and the actual details of the alleged overstay.

I have kept paragraphs 4 to 30 unchanged. 

Thanks so much for your help 

Car1980

Wasn't there a recent very similar appeal case where the keeper was found not to be liable if he genuinely was not the driver but was unable to categorically state who was? 

Happylarry88

Hi @Car1980 thanks for your help, could you please help me with where to find this? I spend hours reading through loads of defences yesterday but I didn’t see this one 

Gr1pr

Paragraph 2 doesn't have the ending described in the template defence , where the drivers identity is unknown,  regardless of the added information about it, because that sentence is about what is admitted 

I would think that Paragraph 3 should be like the @Shahib_02 defence,  with only the date changed 

A Paragraph 3.1 could be added with any useful information 

Happylarry88

Thank you @Gr1pr - I have now tweaked as follows: 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

Euro Car Parks 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 10/07/2022" (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 denies liability for the charge. The alleged breach, claiming that the vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed, occurred on 10/07/2022. However, the Defendant is unable to recall who was driving the vehicle on that specific date, and therefore cannot confirm or deny whether the vehicle was parked beyond the stipulated time limit. The Defendant asserts that mere ownership or registration of the vehicle does not establish liability, particularly when the driver is not identified, and no clear evidence has been presented by the Claimant to prove the identity of the driver or the circumstances of the alleged parking breach. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim fail to provide any specific details regarding the length of the overstay or the signage present, which would be necessary to establish that the Defendant (or any other individual) was indeed in breach of the parking terms. In the absence of this evidence, the Defendant denies any liability for the charge and questions the legitimacy of the Claimant’s claim, particularly given the uncertainty surrounding both the identity of the driver and the actual details of the alleged overstay.

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.

Is this now better for my defence? Sorry if I’ve missed something …

Gr1pr

Check 2, it says NOT the driver,  but you stated that you had no idea who was driving,  your 3.1 confirmed it 

So you have not used the recommended ending shown in the defence template thread in announcements by coupon mad 

Go through it line by line , checking the facts,  because you will be signing your name to the statement of truth 

Coupon-mad

Change the end of 2:

"but NOT the driver at the time."

to

but the Defendant has no idea which of the insured drivers in the family may have been the driver at the material time.

Please show us the POC. Does it say 'overstay'?

Happylarry88

Thanks @Coupon-mad I have amended para 2 accordingly. 

Here’s the POC: 

Coupon-mad

Good. Just change this:

"3.1 The Defendant denies liability for the charge. The alleged breach, claiming that the vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed, occurred on 10/07/2022. However, the Defendant is unable to recall who was driving the vehicle on that specific date, and therefore cannot confirm or deny whether the vehicle was parked beyond the stipulated time limit."

to this, changing the para number to 4:

4. The Defendant denies liability for the charge. The Claimant claims that the vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed. However, the Defendant has seen no evidence of the alleged contract - the signs - nor even that this was a single 'period of parking' and is unable to recall who was driving the vehicle. With no recollection of this alleged incident (which involves a shared car) it is impossible to confirm or deny whether the vehicle was parked beyond a prominently stipulated time limit by a single driver, not that the POC specifies how long the car was supposed to have been there nor even what the purported time limit was. The Defendant avers that ANPR is not reliable in the hands of private parking firms and 'double dip' ANPR errors are rife due to the industry not carrying out adequate human checks of the ANPR data. The Defendant requires the Claimant to show all captures of the vehicle that day, not just the 'first in last out' images that their system is automatically set by default to use in order to churn out as many PCNs as possible and hope keepers pay. The Defendant also requires evidence of the signs as they were on the day, not that a PCN was 'issued' on 10/7/22 anyway.  The entire claim is an assumption based upon automated decision-making by an unchecked and unsynchronised remote camera system. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of the above and their full compliance with the POFA 2012 (the only route to keeper liability) which the Defendant believes was not the case with this Claimant's notices in 2022. Even if they were compliant, Schedule 4 of the Act caps the 'maximum sum' that can potentially be pursued at far less than £170.

then renumber this (onwards) as 5, then renumber the whole remaining paragraphs of the Template:

5. The Defendant asserts that mere ownership or registration of the vehicle does not establish liability, particularly ... etc. etc.

Happylarry88

Thank you very much for your help @Coupon-mad. Fingers now crossed I won’t have to go to court…

Blindside6

Car1980 said:

Wasn't there a recent very similar appeal case where the keeper was found not to be liable if he genuinely was not the driver but was unable to categorically state who was? 

You may be referring to Vehicle Control Services v Edward [2023] Middlesborough County Court H0KF6C9C, before HHJ Gargan?