Ignored the letters now received Court Claim

AppealAvenger2000

Here are the facts

Back on November 23rd, 2022, I parked in a GP/Medical Car park. ( I was visiting a community centre opposite) There was a sign, but I kept an eye out for wardens and checked to see if I got a ticket. I was parked for about an hour and never saw any wardens. I then realised it was an automated car park that checks your number plate and you need to register your car at the reception, which I never did.

After 2 weeks I received a Parking Charge Notice in the post, I Ignored it, I ignored all letters and all the follow up letters from Debt Collectors and DCB legal that kept coming for 2 years, different letterheads but the same company.

I don't have any of the letters.

Today, I received a letter from HM Courts and Tribunal Service. Someone claims I owe them money and has made a claim against me.

Issue Date 10 April 2025

Claimant
EURO CAR PARKS LIMITED 30 DORSET SQUARE
LONDON NW1 6QJ

Address for sending documents and payments (if different)
DCB LEGAL LTD - 0330 1744 172
DIRECT HOUSE, GREENWOOD DRIVE
RUNCORN WA7 1UG


Particulars of Claim
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC) issued to vehicle XXXXXXXX at Porters Avenue Health Centre Dagenham.
2. The date of contravention is 23/11/2022 and the D was issued with PC(s) by the Claimant
3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Your Vehicle Was Not Authorised TO Park
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £155 being the total of the PC(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 £.03 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

Amount claimed
around £180

Court fee
35.00

Legal representatives costs
Total amount
£50

arround £265

----

I have read the sticky newbie posts, but I just want to check what will happen to me if I follow the Defence Template Thread.

What should my next course of action should be? I believe I should Acknowledge the Claim within 14 days via moneyclaim.gov.uk 

But what should I do next? What are my grounds to fight this?

Appreciate any help and I am happy to compensate someone who can provide help that leads to the case being dismissed.

Gr1pr

Do your AOS online first,  by logging into MCOL via the government gateway,  that way your defence submission deadline will be 4pm on may 13th

You use the template defence provided by coupon mad in announcements,  near the newbies sticky thread 

I doubt that the case will be dismissed,  more likely to be discontinued before the trial fee is due in several months time 

Coupon-mad

You just use the Template Defence.

AppealAvenger2000

Thank you, what is the most likely outcome if I use the Template Defence?

Coupon-mad

AppealAvenger2000 said:

Thank you, what is the most likely outcome if I use the Template Defence?

Please read the second post of the NEWBIES thread. All your questions are answered.

Car1980

The Particulars of Claim sound like they've accidentally made a claim for trespass. 

Anyway, 99% of Euro claims are discontinued at the eleventh hour.

AppealAvenger2000

Hi this is my defence based on the template  - I was wondering if anything could have a quick look and tell me if its okay.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxxx

Between:

EURO CAR PARKS LIMITED
(Claimant)
- and -
xxxxxxxxxx
(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 and driver.

3. The Defendant parked briefly at XXXXXXX  on the material date. The car was never left unattended, and the Defendant did not enter the building. Unknown to the Defendant at the time, the site required drivers to enter their registration details at a computer terminal inside the main reception. This requirement was not known or visible to someone who remained with their vehicle outside. The signage failed to make it sufficiently clear that ANPR enforcement was in place or that charges would be issued automatically in the absence of registration input indoors. No warden or attendant was present, and there was no indication that merely being stationary with the vehicle would trigger a Parking Charge. The Defendant denies any breach of contract or liability for the charge.

---

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.

---

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure'

6. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100. It is denied that any 'debt fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

7. 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.

8. 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).

9. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

10. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code, a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30 July 2023:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

11. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 of the draft IA show that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case.

12. 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. Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3):
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

13. The intimidating letter-chains cost eight times less than the £70 falsely added to each PCN. MoJ statistics reveal that this industry causes hundreds of thousands of default CCJs every year from low-value claims artificially inflated to over £250.

14. The heads of alleged loss are not specified, and it is denied that the added costs/damages sought were incurred.

15. A typical private PCN model comprises a series of demands that the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain'. The parking charge itself is already inflated. This claim is more of a revenue-generating model than a deterrence scheme.

16. Whilst the new Code is on hold, the DLUHC has made clear that the £70 enhancement is under scrutiny and likely to be permanently banned. The Courts are asked to take note of this direction of travel.

---

Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA)

17. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a party raises it or not.

18. The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62, and examples in Schedule 2 of that Act.

19. In this case, terms were not prominent, not explained at point of entry, and the alleged contractual obligation is hidden behind indoor processes, in breach of fairness principles. The facts distinguish this from the Beavis case.

---

Lack of standing or landowner authority / Poor ADR

20. The Defendant does not believe the Claimant has proprietary interest or landowner authority. They are put to strict proof.

21. The Claimant failed to offer a fair or impartial Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The IAS, often used in these cases, is demonstrably biased and not truly independent.

---

Conclusion

22. There is now ample evidence to support the view that these are knowingly exaggerated claims causing consumer harm.

23. The claim relies on an unfair charge, is entirely without merit, and should be dismissed.

---

Costs

24. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

• (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14
  
  

• (b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5
  
  

25. Attention is drawn to the high likelihood of a Notice of Discontinuance shortly before the hearing. The court is respectfully asked to consider awarding costs on the basis of unreasonable conduct under r.27.14(2)(g).

---

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: xxxxxxxx
Date: 05/05/2025

Coupon-mad

I like that! Some good alterations and I'm pleased you have made the template your own.

You could add to the end of this final sentence in para 3:

The Defendant denies any breach of contract or liability for the charge and indeed, given the claim is founded on the absurd reason 'Your Vehicle Was Not Authorised TO Park' it is apparent that there was no consideration; nothing of value was offered to patrons whom this Claimant decided were 'unauthorised to park.'

AppealAvenger2000

Coupon-mad said:

I like that! Some good alterations and I'm pleased you have made the template your own.

You could add to the end of this final sentence in para 3:

The Defendant denies any breach of contract or liability for the charge and indeed, given the claim is founded on the absurd reason 'Your Vehicle Was Not Authorised TO Park' it is apparent that there was no consideration; nothing of value was offered to patrons whom this Claimant decided were 'unauthorised to park.'

Thank you for that. I'll be sure to add it

So the next step is to email this and make sure to get that acknowledgement, right? 

AppealAvenger2000

Update - 

recived the N180 form, ive just filled it out by downloading the PDF but what email address do i send it to? Ive cc'd the legal firm but do i send this to the same email address i sent my Defence Letter to?

Thanks

Gr1pr

No, use the DQ email address in the 12 steps in the defence template thread in announcements that you should be following