DCB Legal BPG Ltd - CCJ Claim Defence Assistance Please

Le_Kirk

imgoingtocourtbaby said:

Case dates:
CCJ Issue date: 10 Apr 2025

You don't have a CCJ, you have a N1SDT claim form.

imgoingtocourtbaby

Found it on a desktop - on mobile there seems to be no filter functionality.

Here is my updated defence:

3.  Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. 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. It is not accepted that the signs and/or letters including any Notice to Keeper were in the name 'Britannia Parking Group Ltd' and the Claimant is put to strict proof that they are the entity which purportedly offered the alleged contract and issued the requited postal notices. 
 
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. The Defendant attempted to access the app after getting out of the car park to pay, but it was not possible to pay for a time in the past. 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. 

Coupon-mad

All paragraphs need a number and they don't all have to be called para 3. This is your defence. Be confident to renumber everything normally! Forget 3.1 etc.

Typo: "required" not requited!

And add straight after denying para 2 of the POC: There was no contravention, which would require adverse conduct by the driver (a breach of a fair term imposing a 'relevant obligation') which is denied.

imgoingtocourtbaby

Thanks @Coupon-mad! 

Here's my updated defence.

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. There was no contravention, which would require adverse conduct by the driver (a breach of a fair term imposing a 'relevant obligation') which is denied. 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. It is not accepted that the signs and/or letters including any Notice to Keeper were in the name 'Britannia Parking Group Ltd' and the Claimant is put to strict proof that they are the entity which purportedly offered the alleged contract and issued the required postal notices.

4. 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. The Defendant attempted to access the app after getting out of the car park to pay, but it was not possible to pay for a time in the past. 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.

Coupon-mad

imgoingtocourtbaby said:

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: 24/04/2025
Defence Deadline: 08/05/2025

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

Here's my updated defence.
________________________________________________________

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. There was no contravention, which would require adverse conduct by the driver (a breach of a fair term imposing a 'relevant obligation') which is denied. 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. It is not accepted that the signs and/or letters including any Notice to Keeper were in the name 'Britannia Parking Group Ltd' and the Claimant is put to strict proof that they are the entity which purportedly offered the alleged contract and issued the required postal notices.

4. 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. The Defendant attempted to access the app after getting out of the car park to pay, but it was not possible to pay for a time in the past. 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.

Looks good. No payment methods were working at all then, and you couldn't use the app to buy a backdated session after leaving and finally getting a signal.

imgoingtocourtbaby

Thank you, I noticed that last para (number 5), got lost. This is my final, updated defence:

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. There was no contravention, which would require adverse conduct by the driver (a breach of a fair term imposing a 'relevant obligation') which is denied. 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. It is not accepted that the signs and/or letters including any Notice to Keeper were in the name 'Britannia Parking Group Ltd' and the Claimant is put to strict proof that they are the entity which purportedly offered the alleged contract and issued the required postal notices.

4. 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. The Defendant attempted to access the app after getting out of the car park to pay, but it was not possible to pay for a time in the past. 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. 

5. 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.

Coupon-mad

Of course that isn't your 'final' paragraph though! The template is over 30 paragraphs (don't show us).