Parkmaven - DCB Legal - Court Case

Aslanarito

Just to add this is the sign

Gr1pr

In the POC , it says Contravention,  not Issued,  so remove that short sentence 

Paragraph 2 should have a short ending too, study the template defence 

Coupon-mad

Aslanarito said:

Also just to add - the employee at the hotel advised me I can park in the bay as long as I display my blue badge.

I've contact said employee today and he advised to send an email to the hotel email address and they will get the tickets cancelled (I have another one received in the post recently for the same place) - Question is do I rely on this person or submit a defence with the above information - both the initial information plus the call today? Please let me know and I can add to my defence section

You need to add the above fact to the defence. And you should also add 'and driver' to para 2, as the template defence says. Add it now.

Remove this (no idea why you copied a single date in 2023 anyway; yours are 2 x PCN dates in 2024) ... but DO NOT use this sentence:

"No PCN was "issued on 20/03/2023" (the date of the alleged visit)."

Car1980

How can a vehicle be subject to a charge? Is it going to pay out of its own little special bank account for cars?
That's a repeater sign rather than an actual valid contract. The instruction to read the terms and conditions elsewhere is tiny, whereas it should actually be extremely prominent.

ParkMaven are quite deft at using small print to their advantage in all their signage.

Aslanarito

"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}. "


I was going by the above instruction in the template for DCB hence that extra info was gotten from the thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please/p1 but seems like that was referring to a specific case.


Will share updated defence below

Aslanarito

_________________

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. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. 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 The Defendant was advised by an employee at the hotel where the incident occurred that parking in the bay was permitted, provided that the Defendant displayed their blue badge. This information was given in good faith by a member of the hotel's staff. Upon contacting the said employee on 9th May 2025, they confirmed the guidance and instructed the Defendant to send an email to the hotel's email address. The employee confirmed receipt of the email which was sent later on the same day and assured that they would contact Park Maven to arrange for the cancellation of the ticket.

 

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' currently being addressed by UK Government

6. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  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).

Aslanarito

Hey guys - is the updated Defence ok? any advice/amendments suggested would be greatly appreciated

Coupon-mad

Looks fine. Of course your actual defence will be 30 paragraphs (the whole template) but no showing us that!

Aslanarito

Yep all good 👍 

Thanks again all will post updates here

Aslanarito

Just a small update - the hotel are now saying they can't have the PCNs cancelled as I didn't pay - do i need to update my defence