DCB court claim May2025- Dunelm Parking

Shiero

Dear Experts Team,

I have received the court claim for a parking contravention that took place in Mar 2024 at Dunelm retail business park. 

I have done my acknowledgment online and need to email defence by 14th Jun.

I would be grateful if you could have a look at my drafted paragraph 3 and give me constructive feedback.

Referring to the Particulars of Claim (POC):

·      Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant for the parking charge issued to vehicle at Greyfriars retail Park.

·      Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept being the keeper and does not recall who was driving at the time.

·      Paragraphs 3 is denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms as alleged.  The Claimant states that the vehicle was parked beyond the maximum permitted period of 10 minutes, as indicated on signage (contract). However, the Greyfriars Retail Park signboard (contract) clearly states that a maximum stay of 2 hours is allowed 

·      Paragraphs 4 are denied. While the Defendant acknowledges being the keeper of the vehicle, they dispute liability.

 The Defendant maintains that they are not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. Additionally, the claimed amount is grossly inflated, as no private land Parking Charge Notice (PCN) can reasonably amount to £170. Furthermore, no actual damages were incurred in this matter, further supporting the Defendant’s position.

 3.1 Due to the passage of time, the Defendant has no recollection of the events on the specified date. The Defendant has frequently parked at Greyfriars Retail Park while shopping at The Dunelm during business hours but has never visited the retail park outside of these hours. The Claimant alleges a contravention occurred on 17th March 2024 (Sunday) at 17:00 which is out of business hours and a time when all shops in the retail park were closed. The Defendant was unaware of any parking restrictions applicable on Sundays.

 3.2 Upon reviewing the signage at Greyfriars Retail Park, the Defendant observed that the terms and conditions allow a maximum stay of 24 hours. However, the presence of a addtional second small sign indicating a 10-minute maximum stay outside business hours, as alleged by the Claimant, was not sufficiently prominent to alert motorists, leading to a lack of awareness regarding the restriction. The Defendant contends that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) and therefore denies liability.

Coupon-mad

Remove 3.1 & 3.2 and remove this section:

"The Claimant states that the vehicle was parked beyond the maximum permitted period of 10 minutes, as indicated on signage (contract). However, the Greyfriars Retail Park signboard (contract) clearly states that a maximum stay of 2 hours is allowed."

The reason to remove all those sections is because you are responding to something that the POC fails to state. 

Shiero

Thanks for your response.
POC attached for info. Paragraph 3 state vehicle parked longer than max period allowed and breach of terms on sign (more than 10 min) While there is additional second Grayfiars retail park signboard which states 2 hrs max stay allowed. Therefore defence provided under 3.1 and 3.2 without annexe and will be provided during witness statement.

Coupon-mad

Paragraph 3 state vehicle parked longer than max period allowed and breach of terms on sign (more than 10 min) 

It doesn't say that.

Hence don't fill in what the POC do not say!

Castle

Unless you have redacted the town/city, they haven't stated the full address of the retail park.

Le_Kirk

Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept being the keeper and does not recall who was driving at the time

Is it a lease vehicle?  If you are not the keeper, how have you received the N1SDT form?

Shiero

Le_Kirk said:

Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept being the keeper and does not recall who was driving at the time

Is it a lease vehicle?  If you are not the keeper, how have you received the N1SDT form?

That’s right, it is leased vehicle. I mean “The defendant denies responsibility as the keeper and unable to recall who was driving at the time.”

Coupon-mad

Then you should state it was a leased vehicle and the Claimant failed to transfer liability to the Defendant as lessee/hirer, due to the Claimant's non-compliance with paragraphs 13/14 of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. 

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th May, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 16th June 2025 to file a Defence.

That's three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Shiero

Coupon-mad said:

Then you should state it was a leased vehicle and the Claimant failed to transfer liability to the Defendant as lessee/hirer, due to the Claimant's non-compliance with paragraphs 13/14 of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. 

I will add above under clause 1 and hope it is ok.

To share background, Euro car first send PCN to my company, later company shared my details to Euro car to send PCN to me being keeper which I never acknowledged or talk to them. DCB legal sent letter of claim first followed by court claim.

Le_Kirk

For the avoidance of doubt, is the N1SDT claim form in your name as lessee?  If it is in the name of the lease company, I don't see how you can or need to defend it.