Parkmaven - DCB Legal - Court Case

Coupon-mad

Did you already submit it?

You can't change it, if so.

Aslanarito

No not yet... anything you would recommend adding as a defence before I do? Or is the generic one ok?

Coupon-mad

Aslanarito said:

_________________

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).

I just reviewed it again. Leave it exactly as above, with the rest of the template defence added and renumbered, of course (but don't show us the template, thanks).

The fact that the hotel advised you to park there and wanted the PCNs cancelled is still true.

That Parkmaven refused just shows that they aren't acting in the interests of the landowner, as this shocking industry always pretend they are. Not true.

It's not a good look, is it? Hotels and other landowners should realise what's happening and scrape them iff their shoe. I'm sure some more landowners will.

Aslanarito

Perfect thanks as always mate