EuroCarParks / DCBLegal Court Claim

Automotivesausage

Hi everyone,

Firstly thank you to everyone who has posted on here regarding fighting unfair PCNs, it's been really useful!

In 2017/2018 I owned a Vehicle which i then traded in at a large 'car supermarket'. 

As part of the sale i recieved a checklist and invoice detailing the sale, the fact there was a valid MOT and Log Book V5 which had ben filled out correctly.

in 2021 almost 3 years later I received a penalty notice from Euro Car Parks for a contravention. 

I appealed this and sent them the aforementioned proof of sale. I added that the vehicle had been taxed and MOT'd for three years by someone else so I wasn't quite sure why they had my details. 

I had an auto reply, then heard nothing... for 4 years.

January 2025 I received a letter from DCBL chasing for payment of £170 for the outstanding PCN. DCBL clarified over the phone that Euro Car Parks rejected my appeal and had evidence I was either the driver or the registered keeper. 

*Just to clarify the last time i saw the car was when it was par exchanged and Ive never actially been to the town where the PCN was issued.

A quick call to DVLA revealed this was not the case and that i was last registered as keeper in 2018. 

I decided to then ignore DCBL as they had no proof that i was either the driver or keeper, and obviously they wouldn't proceed to file a clim on that basis, because - why would you file a claim without any evidence?

Then in June 2025 it arrived - A letter from HM Courts and Tribunals.

Ah I thought - someone serious. the AOS was completed and returned. 

DCBLegal have since been calling to pursue this, including a call where the claimed to have already won a CCJ against me and now payment had to be made. This is totally false and the call handler said it was standard practice to do this if they thought an AOS hadn't been filled out. Which it has...

Defence is as below:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: M3KF14N3

 

Between

Euro Car Parks Limited

(Claimant) 

- v -  

Automotivesausage

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1.    The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that the defendant was in breach of any term.  

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.

The Claimant is seeking to recover costs for a parking contravention by a (Make of Vehicle), (Reg of Vehicle), at (Location )on the (DATE).

The Defendant denies all liability as:

 

i)               The Defendant DID NOT OWN THE VEHICLE at the time of the alleged parking contravention.

·       The Defendant sold the vehicle sold to xxxx on the xx/xx/xx.

·       A copy of the sale receipt is attached at Appendix 1.

 

ii)              The Defendant WAS NOT DRIVING THE VEHICLE at the time of the alleged parking contravention.

·       The Defendant has not seen the vehicle since it was sold to xxxx on the xx/xx/xx nor has the Defendant ever been to xxxx.

·       The Defendant rejects the claim that they were the driver of the vehicle (as per POC para3), and no evidence has been, or indeed can possibly be provided to suggest this.

 

iii)            The Defendant WAS NOT THE REGISTERED KEEPER of the vehicle at the time of the alleged parking contravention.

·       The Claimant has stated that ‘in the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2021 Schedule 4’ (POC para4).

·       The DVLA was notified of the sale of the vehicle and have confirmed via telephone on the xx/xx/xx that the Defendant was the last registered as the keeper on the xx/xx/xx.

·       The Claimant has never been able to provide evidence that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

·       An official copy of the register has been applied for, and the application has been appended (Appendix 2). Once further correspondence from the DVLA is received this will be forwarded on to the court.

·       Alternatively the court can independently request this information from the DVLA directly. 

3.    Therefore, it would seem entirely impossible and totally unreasonable for the Defendant to be responsible for either the initial parking contravention, or the subsequent costs pursued by the Claimant as the vehicle was disposed of three years prior to the event.

Conclusion

4.    The claim itself relies on a charge which is entirely without merit, and should be dismissed.

Costs

5.    In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

a.    standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

b.    a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

6.    Attention is drawn to the distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."    

7.    It is the Defendants belief that the Claimant and their Representatives, DCBLegal have behaved unreasonably as:

a.     The Claimant has previously been provided of proof that the Defendant did not own the vehicle by way of appeal on the xx/xx/xx. The Defendant did not receive any further information from the Claimant and had assumed the Penalty Charge had been waived.

b.    The Claimants representatives DCBLegal have harassed the Defendant by way of letters and unsolicited phone calls that the Defendant believes are purposefully misleading and threatening in order to scare the Defendant into paying them money.

c.     The Defendant received an automated call from DCBLegal on the xx/xx/xx stating that DCBLegal had successfully filed a CCJ against the Defendant and that payment must now be made within 30 days. DCBLegal has not filed a CCJ against the Defendant. The Defendant believes that pressure was being applied through misinformation in order to intimidate the Defendant into handing over money.

d.    The Defendant feels the behaviour of DCBLegal is close to that defined by an ‘extortion racket’.

Statement of Truth

8.    I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signature:

Date:

Any thoughts or general tips would be appreciated. 

Thanks everyone! 

Car1980

So to clarify, you were not the KEEPER at the time? (forget ownership)

Car1980

I decided to then ignore DCBL as they had no proof that i was either the driver or keeper, and obviously they wouldn't proceed to file a clim on that basis, because - why would you file a claim without any evidence?

Because they use the court system as a cheap debt collection service. They will discontinue near the court date and have always intended to do so.

Automotivesausage

Car1980 said:

So to clarify, you were not the KEEPER at the time? (forget ownership)

Correct I was neither the KEEPER or OWNEER. 

DVLA are going to send me a letter to clarify that i was last the keeper of the vehicle in 2018, 3 years prior to the PCN. Takes 6 weeks though...

No idea how they got my details, probably sent the wrong date to the DVLA.

Automotivesausage

Car1980 said:

I decided to then ignore DCBL as they had no proof that i was either the driver or keeper, and obviously they wouldn't proceed to file a clim on that basis, because - why would you file a claim without any evidence?

Because they use the court system as a cheap debt collection service. They will discontinue near the court date and have always intended to do so.

It's quite astonishing really. You can see how many people would be scared by their tactics into paying. Genuinely Racketeering behaviour. 

Coupon-mad

Can we ask you to check your MCOL history?  Hope you didn't post the Acknowledgement snail mail? Is your AOS logged?

Then in June 2025 it arrived - A letter from HM Courts and Tribunals.

Can't have done, we aren't in June yet! Show us the claim form, redacting the 4 things seen on all the other DCB Legal claim threads.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with all your personal detail hidden of course.

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Car1980

4.    The claim itself relies on a charge which is entirely without merit, and should be dismissed.

Defence looks sound to me. I'd replace dismissed with struck out, using this wording:

....should be struck out under 3.4 (2) (a) of The Court's Case Management Powers:

The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –

(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

Careful with costs because they're not applicable until the claim has been allocated to a track. So you might undermine your desire for a strike out with simultaneously saying you would like to continue so you get costs. 

Maybe try and reword and maybe quote Orton v Barclays Bank UK PLC Trading as Barclay Card (27 March 2025). Or save the costs for any witness statement.

Automotivesausage

Coupon-mad said:

Can we ask you to check your MCOL history?  Hope you didn't post the Acknowledgement snail mail? Is your AOS logged?

Then in June 2025 it arrived - A letter from HM Courts and Tribunals.

Can't have done, we aren't in June yet! Show us the claim form, redacting the 4 things seen on all the other DCB Legal claim threads.

Oh snap! I meant April!

AOS was sent via email and received on day 12.

we are currently on day 19 - but I’d like to get my defence submitted by email this weekend.

KeithP

Have you an answer to my other question?

Coupon-mad

And the redacted picture I asked for?