Submitting defence after AoS - DCB Legal/Euro Car Parks - review of draft needed

Fatman_JL

Hi, I have spent an eternity reading the Newbie thread and I am compiling my defence now  which is due by 25/04/2025 having submitted by AoS on 11/04/2025.

I can't seem to find the right defence template wording to use so was hoping somebody could help me.

Essentially I hired a car back in Feb 2024 for a week from Enterprise. It developed a fault whilst my wife was driving on the motorway, she pulled off at the next available exit and pulled into an MFG Esso car park. She never left the car and waited for the RAC to arrive (this would be on camera). Once the RAC had done their bit, she then drove home. The hire car company forwarded on the PCN which I ignored - it's in my name as i hired the car, my wife was named to drive with Enterprise.

The PoC is as follows:
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.

2. The date of the contravention is 06/02/2024 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 parked longer than the maximum period allowed.
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

The below is where my defence is upto. Could somebody kindly advise if it is acceptable or if anything needs to be amended please? Thanks in advance!

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  ********

Between

Euro Car Parks Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

************                        

 (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 which was hired is recognised and it is admitted that the defendants wife was the driver at the time but not the registered keeper.

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 06/02/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The defendant was not the driver, the defendants wife was. The hire vehicle in question developed a fault on the motorway with speed limited to 30mph and no hard shoulder. The driver left at the next available exit and parked in what was believed to be a safe space and then called the RAC breakdown company. The RAC mechanic arrived (this would have been visible on CCTV available to the Claimant). Once resolved, the RAC mechanic and the driver (defendant's wife) departed the site in question immediately. 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.

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.

Coupon-mad

Looks good so far, as long as it doesn't stop there of course (the rest of the 30 paragraph template goes after that but DON'T show it here please, spare us!).

Change this at the end of para 2:

However, the vehicle which was hired is recognised and it is admitted that the defendants wife was the driver at the time but not the registered keeper. 

To this:

However, the vehicle is recognised as a an Enterprise hire vehicle. Whilst the defendant was the hirer, he was neither the keeper nor the driver. As such, there is no cause of action against the hirer, due to the POC not pleading hirer liability and the Claimant's Notice to Hirer failing to enclose the mandatory documents prescribed in Paragraph 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

And replace this EXACT sentence (only):

No PCN was "issued on 06/02/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).

with this:

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.

Fatman_JL

Much appreciated Coupon_Mad. I shall submit and update with the outcome - hopefully a positive one!