Euro Car Parks DCB legal response to 1st email template

Moo138

Thanks I found it.Does this look okay now?

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

3.Defendant was dropping someone therefore stopped not parked.

To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes.

The definition of “parking period” as outlined in the withdrawn Private Parking Code of Practice(February 2022) is:

Parking period: The length of time that a vehicle has been parked on relevant land, and for which any parking tariff is to be paid or is covered by a permit, permission, or other kind of authority to park

This definition is referenced in the context of the withdrawn code and aligns with the terms used in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which the code was designed to complement

This principle is supported by the case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E (Oxford County Court), in which His Honour Judge Harris QC ruled that:

"Unloading in the course of moving in is not parking in the usual sense of the word and does not constitute a breach of terms.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: '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))'.

Moo138

Does this defence look ok?

Coupon-mad

Replace your supposed quote from HHJ Harris (which I don't recognise) with his REAL words instead, which you keep writing as if they're your words!

"To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes".

Also I am glad you found this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline! Just 2 weeks left but please don't rush it. You can do some then save it and come back to it as you have time.

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that.

So to try to help, I've written some guidance on that thread.

Any questions on the Consultation please ask - on the dedicated thread - but I've covered up to question 20 already in that first post, openly telling everyone what I'm going to put and/or what sort of evidence you might wish to use for your response, if you agree with what we'll be saying from our experience.

Whilst your answers must of course be your own, there are vital points to safeguard motorists interests to make, that many people may not think of without our guidance because we see cases every day and we know the legal background. 

However, people like you have lived & breathed the intimidation, greed and unfairness first hand so your voice is needed!

Moo138

Thanks so would that be this paragraph 

The issues in the Defendant's case are similar to the sort of temporary 'vicissitude' that the respected Senior Circuit Judge, Charles Harris QC, had in mind when he found as fact in Jopson v Home Guard [2016] B9GF0A9E (on Appeal at Oxford County Court) that a temporary stop as part of the normal action of coming & going of daily life is not something that can give rise to a 'parking charge' nor even be considered by an average, reasonable person as 'parking'.    HHJ Harris attempted to define parking in that appeal case and the transcript of his decision will be provided in evidence

Not sure if I can find his exact words when searching the full

Coupon-mad

No. I told you which words were his quote. It's in your draft slready!

Moo138

Sorry, I’m just confused. What I’m meant to change then it’s not really clear if his quote is already in there, are you saying To make a point that as it’s his quote rather than my own words?

Coupon-mad

Exactly.    

Moo138

Coupon-mad said:

Exactly.    

ok thank you, I think I fixed that paragraph now so section 3 looks like

3.Defendant was dropping someone therefore stopped not parked.

The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016)

“To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes”

The definition of “parking period” as outlined in the withdrawn Private Parking Code of Practice(February 2022) is:

Parking period: The length of time that a vehicle has been parked on relevant land, and for which any parking tariff is to be paid or is covered by a permit, permission, or other kind of authority to park

This definition is referenced in the context of the withdrawn code and aligns with the terms used in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which the code was designed to complement

This principle is supported by the case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E (Oxford County Court), in which His Honour Judge Harris QC ruled that:

"Unloading in the course of moving in is not parking in the usual sense of the word and does not constitute a breach of terms.

Does it look okay to submit now?

Coupon-mad

Yes except I would amalgamate your quotes from HHJ Harris so they are in the same paragraph, as his quotes are the same subject matter. Use the full citation for the case:

 'Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E (Oxford County Court), in which His Honour Judge Harris QC'

...and not the short version of the case citation that you had in that first paragraph.

And put this in quotes and italics as well:

Parking period: The length of time that a vehicle has been parked on relevant land, and for which any parking tariff is to be paid or is covered by a permit, permission, or other kind of authority to park

AND - why have you missed out THE most important part of that Code definition - where it says it EXCLUDES setting down or picking up passengers?!

Moo138

Thank you! I’m not sure what I left that bit out perhaps I missed it! I will go back and look for it, though