DCB Legal BPG Ltd - CCJ Claim Defence Assistance Please

imgoingtocourtbaby

Hi Everyone,

I am following the process outlined on this forum to formulate a defence and I would welcome your feedback/guidance. Thank you for all the resources that you have made available to me, this is much appreciated!

Case dates:
N1SDT Claim Form Issue date: 10 Apr 2025
Claimant: Britannia Parking Group Ltd with DCB Legal
AOS Deadline: 29/04/2025
Defence Deadline: 13/05/2025 at 4pm

POC:
Particulars of Claim
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC)  issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.

2. The date of the contravention is XX/XX/XXXX 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: Failed TO Make A Valid Payment.

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 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 £.02 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

Defence TLDR: ticket machines not working, no phone signal at location, photo evidence of machine "out of service" with date shown, negative 1* reviews on Parkopedia, TripAdvisor and Facebook describing the carpark as "scam" and "rip-off".

Here is the relevant Defence excerpt:
__________________________________________________________________________________

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. 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 XX/XX/XXXX" (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 Further to paragraph 3, the Defendant avers that the parking machines at the location were not working at the time of the alleged contravention. The Defendant has photographic evidence showing the ticket machine screen displaying "out of service" on the relevant date. Additionally, there was no mobile phone or internet signal at the location, making it impossible to pay via any app or online method, even if an alternative payment option had been available. These circumstances rendered it impossible for the Defendant to comply with any purported terms of parking. The Defendant attempted to comply with payment obligations but was physically prevented from doing so due to equipment failure and lack of connectivity, which are the responsibility of the site operator and/or Claimant.

Furthermore, there are numerous online complaints about this particular car park, including reviews on Parkopedia, TripAdvisor, and Facebook, describing it as a “scam” and a “rip-off,” suggesting systemic issues with signage, functionality, and enforcement practices. While not determinative on their own, these reports support the Defendant’s assertion that the car park is operated in a manner that is misleading and unfair to consumers, and that the alleged charge is disproportionate and punitive rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss or service charge. The Claimant is put to strict proof that adequate signage, functional payment options, and fair procedures were in place and operational at the time in question.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Please let me know if the below defence is suitable in my situation.

Questions:

1. Do I need to attach my photo to the defence email/PDF?

2. Do I need to attach screenshots of the negative reviews? Should I even mention this in the defence or is not relevant?

3. As I was the driver, do I need to deny paragraphs 3 and 4? Instructions say to copy @shahib_02 Regarding the POC, but he was contesting that he wasn't the driver.

4. What do you think of the above defence?


Thank you in advance!

I will keep everyone updated on the case as it progresses and reveal the location at the end!

Gr1pr

13th MAY at 4 pm would be your deadline once the AOS has been completed on MCOL ( AOS deadline is the 29th April )

1) NO, no exhibits accompany a defence  , save it for the WS

2) no screenshots either , save it for the WS

3) NO untruths, study the defence template in the defence template thread, especially if the POC mentions the word contravention
 

imgoingtocourtbaby

Adding the POC.

PoC:
Particulars of Claim 1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC)  issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.

2. The date of the contravention is XX/XX/XXXX 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: Failed TO Make A Valid Payment.
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 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 £.02 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

Yes I did not count the additional 5 service days.

Thank you, so I'll remove the denial of points 3 and 4. The defence template implies you can just copy across Regarding POC, but actually you have to adjust it to your situation, so maybe it needs updating.

I studied the defence template on this thread, which I believe is the one you are referring to? 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-with-added-admin-dra-costs-edited-in-2024/p1

'Contravention' is not mentioned once on the thread, so not sure what else do you mean?

Gr1pr

DCB Legal used to have a flawed POC until recently, it said ISSUED, but now says CONTRAVENTION, so its important to realise that the shahib defence was against the old ISSUED, incorrect date, whereas CONTRAVENTION date is probably correct, so different response would likely be required

sometimes the information we give is because claims vary widely, especially when lawyers make basic mistakes or errors or omissions , or they correct their mistakes, evolving

why are you denying points 3 and 4 ?  you should be giving reasons on here for your decisions , especially if adapting or removing stuff

your initial draft mentions ISSUED but your actual POC dont, it says CONTRAVENTION, so you need to closely check facts and wordings

imgoingtocourtbaby

I considered removing the denial of points 3 and 4 because I was the driver. However, this would also mean removal of denial of the breach of terms so that does not make sense... Okay so I think I should keep the denial of points 3 and 4.

The POC says both words:
 "2. The date of the CONTRAVENTION is XX/XX/XXXX and the D was ISSUED with PCs...". 

UPDATED DEFENCE:
3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PC was "issued on XX/XX/XXXX" (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 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.

Coupon-mad

How long were you on site?

Left the car parked even though you hadn't paid, OR left the site in the car within minutes?

imgoingtocourtbaby

Yes I left the car parked on site - there was nowhere else to park there. I tried accessing the app after getting out of the car park to pay but it wasn't possible to pay for a time in the past. 

imgoingtocourtbaby

There was no signal there. No way to pay as machine was out of service. 

Coupon-mad

OK so add this and info about the failed payment methods (i.e. the facts of what happened) as your para 3.1:

 I tried accessing the app after getting out of the car park to pay but it wasn't possible to pay for a time in the past. 

Copy shahib's para 3 except remove the line about "PCN issued". It is irrelevant that they are denying driving (in their case) because that's in their para 2 that you are not copying!

Finally search the forum for a post by me yesterday (day before?) including the words Britannia spelling and copy what I suggested to that Defendant.

imgoingtocourtbaby

Thank you.

Okay will update it tomorrow and post the new version.

I can't seem to find the post that you are describing. Searching on this forum for a particular reply is really difficult. Will try again on a desktop tomorrow!

Coupon-mad

Odd.  I just tested it.  Came up in 5 seconds. You do have to filter to the poster as me.