ECP/DCB Legal PCN - CNBC Claim - Help with Defence Assistance Required

papa_tango

Hi everyone,

Firstly, thanks for all the guidance regarding PCN's and small claims arising from them, it's answered so many questions I had.

I have received a standard cut and paste claim from DCB Legal representing Euro Car Parks on 26/03/25, with this POC:

1) The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to the vehicle ****** at MFG ESSO Petrol Station H****
2) The PCN(s) were issued on 04/12/2020
3) The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms of the signs (contract). Reason: Your Vehicle Was Parked Longer Than The Maximum Period Allowed.
4) In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
Etc, Etc.

AOS submitted via MCOL 07/04/25, nothing else done on the MCOL site, know treating as a progress tracker only. Defence deadline should be the 28th April I believe.

My question is should I use the standard defence template or the extended one focusing on the poor POC?

So far I have gone with the standard with the below entered into section 3. Am I going into too much detail too early, should I save this for the witness statement if they choose to proceed? 

Any advice would be much appreciated!

Current draft:

3. The Defendant denies that any debt is owed to the Claimant and sets out the defence as follows:

3.1. Lack of Clear and Adequate Signage

The Defendant entered the Esso petrol station on 04/12/2020 for the sole purpose of purchasing fuel. At no time was the Defendant aware of entering into any contractual agreement with the Claimant. The only signage displaying terms and conditions was situated at the entrance to the petrol station, directly off a dual carriageway, and was not clearly visible or legible to a driver safely entering the site. No signage was present or visible at the fuel pumps, where a customer would reasonably expect to see such terms if they were to form part of any agreement.

3.2. Mechanical Breakdown and Mitigating Circumstances

Upon completion of the fuel purchase, the Defendant attempted to restart the vehicle and discovered a failure of the electric power steering system. Recognising the potential danger of driving the vehicle in this condition, the Defendant moved the vehicle away from the pumps to a safe location and informed the station attendant of the issue. The attendant reassured the Defendant and did not advise that any parking restrictions were in force or that a penalty could be incurred.

The Defendant attempted to arrange breakdown recovery but was informed the wait time would be several hours. With young children in the vehicle and concerns for their safety and welfare, the Defendant located a local garage less than a mile away and, exercising due care, drove the vehicle there for urgent repair. A copy of the repair receipt can be provided as supporting evidence.

3.3. Disproportionate and Unreasonable Time Limit

The 15-minute time limit imposed by the Claimant is, in the Defendant’s view, arbitrary, overly stringent, and unreasonable, particularly within the context of a petrol station serving customers who may encounter delays beyond their control. The Defendant was a legitimate customer at the establishment and took all reasonable steps in the face of an emergency.

3.4. Timely Appeal and Inadequate Response

The Defendant submitted a written appeal against the Parking Charge Notice on 05/01/2021. On 08/01/2021, the Defendant received a “Final Warning” from the Claimant. The Defendant reasonably assumed that this letter had been generated and sent prior to the receipt or consideration of their appeal. No further correspondence was received from the Claimant in response to the appeal.

The Defendant subsequently received correspondence from Debt Recovery Plus on 11/02/2021, demanding payment. Based on widely available legal guidance and consumer advice, the Defendant understood that communication with third-party debt collectors was not required and that the matter should only proceed if the landowner or original creditor chose to issue formal proceedings.

3.5. No Breach of Contract and Genuine Customer Use

The Defendant asserts that they did not breach any enforceable contract. There was no opportunity to review or accept any terms, and no agreement was knowingly entered into. The Defendant acted reasonably, responsibly, and in good faith throughout. The Defendant was a paying customer of the petrol station, experienced an unforeseeable mechanical issue, and took appropriate action to resolve it without causing obstruction or misuse of the premises.

3.6. Conclusion

The Defendant contends that the Parking Charge Notice is invalid, unjust, and unenforceable due to inadequate signage, lack of contractual agreement, the presence of mitigating circumstances, and a failure by the Claimant to follow a fair and transparent appeal process. The Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed in full, with no costs awarded against them.

Coupon-mad

You don't need all of that detail. That's for WS stage later.

My question is should I use the standard defence template ?

Yes - not the other one. But your para 3 is already written (in the Template Defence).

papa_tango

Thanks CM, I will remove and save for the WS.

Ref para 3, am I being dense, I thought this was where I should explain a defence? Should I just paraphrase the above?

3. {if you have a DCB Legal Claim you can copy the new 'Regarding the POC...' paragraph 3 from the thread by @shahib_02 and only need to add further details as para 3.1. if you have something important to add, such as the fact you appealed and they refused to cancel, or maybe the machines or app were not working, or if you were not driving and believe the NTK was non-POFA you should add that and deny liability}. 

or 

EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS...NB: defences are written in the THIRD person as 'the Defendant', not 'I did this' nor 'my/me' 

Say why the car was there - if you know - but don't answer to details that are not stated in the PARTICULARS OF CLAIM. If you didn't get any letters or it was years ago & you can't recall if you were driving, say that. ONLY IF TRUE.

If this was a residential site where the driver lives/was a permitted visitor, state those parking rights. Older residential defence examples are in the NEWBIES thread.  CRIB SOME PARAGRAPHS BUT USE THIS TEMPLATE AS YOUR BASE.

We recommend you continue with this wording (yes, all of it! Paragraphs suitably re-numbered to allow for the above).

Coupon-mad

"if you have a DCB Legal Claim you can copy the new 'Regarding the POC...' paragraph 3 from the thread by @shahib_02 and only need to add further details as para 3.1. if you have something important to add"

papa_tango

Thank you @Coupon-mad , I've found that thread and see what is meant now.

Please see revised paragraph 3, appreciate if you could advise if I'm not making any obvious errors. I'm keen to get this submitted soon.

3.  The Defendant denies the allegations set out in paragraph 1 of the Particulars of Claim. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant in the sum claimed or at all. Paragraph 2 is admitted. The Defendant was a regular patron of the business premises referred to, specifically the Esso petrol station.  Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, the Defendant denies that any enforceable agreement was entered into with the Claimant. The Claimant's signage was inadequate and not visible at the fuel pumps or in a location where it could reasonably be read and understood before entering any purported contract. The Defendant therefore denies that any contract was formed.

3.1  The Defendant has seen no evidence of a prominent or clearly communicated breach of terms, nor any evidence that the signage at the site complied with the standards required under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 or Parking on Private Land Code of Practice.

The amount claimed is excessive and represents an unlawful penalty. No private parking charge can lawfully escalate to £170 without justification. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN), if properly issued, would not exceed £100, and even that is disputed. There is no basis for the additional costs claimed. The Claimant is put to strict proof of how these costs were calculated and how they are justified.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has suffered no loss or damages, and the charge represents a speculative and punitive demand rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The Defendant respectfully requests the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety and reserves the right to produce further evidence and submissions as may be necessary in response to any further particulars or witness evidence the Claimant may submit.

Coupon-mad

This is paragraph 2 of the POC:

"2) The PCN(s) were issued on 04/12/2020"

That is NOT admitted or correct. I don't know why you didn't just copy shahib's sentence about that,  which is relevant in your case.

You don't need 3.1 because ALL of that is already in the Template Defence.

papa_tango

Thanks for your patience  😌 , this is obviously not my strong suit.

Okay going for the final draft as below. 

3.  The Defendant denies the allegations set out in paragraph 1 of the Particulars of Claim. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant in the sum claimed or at all. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 04/12/2020" (the date of the alleged visit).  Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, the Defendant denies that any enforceable agreement was entered into with the Claimant. The Claimant's signage was inadequate and not visible at the fuel pumps or in a location where it could reasonably be read and understood before entering any purported contract. The Defendant therefore denies that any contract was formed.

Coupon-mad

I assume you added 'and driver' to the end of para 2 (and hopefully didn't copy shahib's para 2) so you can also add 'and driver' after 'registered keeper' in para 3.

papa_tango

Yep, para 2 straight from the template with 'and driver' added, will do the same for para 3.

Is any of the rest of Shahib's para 3 needed? 

Coupon-mad

All of it. Looks like you removed the bit about £170. Put it all back in.

papa_tango

Done. Much obliged CM.

Will report back response in case anyone is interested.