PCN County Court Claim Defence Advice

MW33

Dear Sir/Madam

I have tried to keep this post as short as possible although I’m afraid it actually isn’t, I apologise but thought everything I have included was relevant for you to be aware of. Please let me know what additional information you may require.

I have spent many hours reading through the advice on the newbie post and many other threads so I hope I am reasonably in tune with where I am in the process and what I need to do but please could you give me some advice on the particulars I should include in the adjusted paragraph 3 of my defence as I couldn’t find a similar set of circumstances to mine where the alleged breach of terms and conditions is “Your vehicle was not authorised to park”.

The basics are:-

I am at the stage of having acknowledged, 28/05/2025, receipt of the money claim issued by HM Courts & Tribunals Services Northampton, within the 14 plus 5 days from date of issue, 13/05/2025 and I have requested the additional 14 days to file a defence so I believe I have around two weeks or so to file my defence.

I received a “Notice To Keeper” PCN claiming payment from me of £100, the PCN was issued by Euro Car Parks dated 10/04/2024 for the alleged contravention of “Your vehicle was not authorised to park” at a business park in Birmingham (I’ve not provided the exact location because I’ve seen comments about including detail which can be found by the representatives of the parking companies as they search this site). I have received the usual subsequent claims from Debt Recovery Plus and DCBL.

There are notices all over the business park all stating the same parking conditions which primarily are that only authorised vehicles are allowed to park, there is no payment option or vehicle registration entering option, no machines. As I understand it business owners and their staff register their vehicles on some sort of ‘whitelist’ and they are supposed to add any visitors to this whitelist, however, there is no information on this on the parking notices.

The circumstances particular to me are that the mechanic I use rents a unit on this business park. I visit the unit on numerous occasions per year in different cars, up to 4, being my own, my wife’s and my two children’s. My mechanic and his staff would also drive my vehicles to and from the unit as per whatever circumstances dictate. My mechanic is very busy and has well over double figures of cars in and around his unit at any point in time and he has informed me he never adds the vehicle registrations of customers cars to the supposed ‘whitelist’ as he would spend far too much of his time doing so. The parking restrictions have been in place for many years and I have never received a PCN even though my cars have been outside his unit for sometimes a period of weeks so I can only assume there are parts of the business park where restrictions are enforced and parts where they aren’t and on the day in question a restriction was contravened whereas on all other visits they were not.

It is not possible from the photos to determine what part of the business park they are showing, to me I can only guess it is entry and exit. One thing I am certain of is that I gave my car to my mechanic several days before the start date and time on the PCN, I often drop my car at his home address because it is nearer to me than his unit and he takes the car to his unit, so I certainly wasn’t the person driving the car at the start of the alleged contravention, I collected my car on the day of the alleged end time of the parking period contravention. Again, I can only assume my mechanic or one of his staff drove or parked the car during the start point of the alleged contravention, it certainly wasn’t me. Furthermore, knowing my mechanic and his staff don’t incur contraventions for all the dozens of times a day they drive customers cars and enter, park and exit the business park I can’t understand what contravention they made during the period which has been cited for my alleged contravention.

Finally, I initially contacted the business park to try and understand what had happened without the specifics of my issue and this is where I found out about the whitelist. I was informed that if a business owner hadn’t given them a registration for a visiting customer then there wasn’t anything they could do after the event. When I informed my mechanic about the problem he said he has no power to affect anything after the event and has tried previously, this also fits in with the information the business park gave me. My mechanic advised that this had happened to several customers albeit only a small portion of his total and he advised to ignore all claims and do not engage. That advice did match some of what I had heard from friends and that I had seen online so this is what I did apart from my initial anonymous contact with the business park.

I was thinking I should add to paragraph 2 that the defendant doesn’t know who was driving the vehicle and include the latest advice for DCBL cases paragraph 3.1 of the Homebase claim.

What I’m hoping you can advise me on is do I include all of the above in my paragraph 3 of my defence or is it too specific/too much detail/not relevant to their accusation, I have seen comments from experts about keeping information concise at this stage and to save the detail for any potential witness statement so should I actually not include any of it and stick to the defence that I wasn’t the driver?

Many thanks in anticipation of any help you may be able to offer, I haven’t done anything wrong but I’m very worried about fighting a court case and losing it and incurring charges and costs adding up to a lot of money.

Coupon-mad

No just follow whet the Template Defence links you to. The claim will be discontinued before a hearing anyway. 

MW33

Wow, thank you so much for your unbelievably fast response, I am very grateful. Please if you have time, could you confirm if your comment regarding the claim being discontinued before the hearing is made because that is what DCBL always do, apologies I've read through that much content I'm unsure but I seem to recall seeing something about DCBL not seeing things through.
I will post my defence paragraphs just to be sure I've selected the correct links and potentially to help others.
I will of course continue my story so that hopefully come the day of reckoning I will not be pursued to the end point and therefore yourself/MSE can record another win. 

Coupon-mad

Yes read the DCB Legal discontinuances thread by @Umkomaas. 577 cases already!

They always discontinue single PCN cases for Euro Car Parks.

MW33

Again, many thanks for your fast response and the link you have provided, I am very grateful and I will check that out now, I will continue my post for the reasons I gave in my recent response, thanks you so much!

MW33

Hello again

I have taken your advice to not include the detailed circumstances which led to my PCN so I have made a small amendment to paragraph 2 of the defence to reflect no knowledge of who was driving and I've used the first part of the latest version of paragraph 3.

I did think of adding some detail to paragraph 3 in respect of the parking signs not specifying how a vehicle gains authorisation to park (effectively the 'whitelist'), and the fact that I presumed the business owner had placed my car on the 'whitelist'/ensured it was given authorisation to park but after reading your advice I decided that might be too much information at this point and as has been previously pointed out, might be best kept for any possible witness statement.

I've placed below the two amendable paragraphs of the template defence just to be certain this is what you are advising if you would be kind enough to confirm for me please before I submit my defence via the most recent suggested email response method (ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk) and not via the MoneyClaimOnline website.

My paragraphs 2 & 3, 

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 but the Defendant doesn’t know who was driving the vehicle.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 23/06/2020, as alleged.  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.

Many thanks again

Gr1pr

Surely the date is incorrect   ?

Coupon-mad

Add 3.1.

3.1.  It is not possible from the grainy 2020 photos to determine in what part of the business park the Claimants say the car was parked because they have provided only entry and exit pictures. Even if the car passed a camera, the Defendant believes that their car was safely inside one of the units for mechanical work. Further, the Defendant was neither the driver nor the 'keeper' (the POFA 2012 confirms this is not necessarily the registered keeper, where evidence exists to the contrary). In this case, the Defendant is certain and can evidence that they put the car into the keeping of their regular mechanic several days before the start date and time on the PCN. The Defendant often drops the car at his home address because it is nearer than his unit. From that point in time, the mechanic is the keeper (POFA Schedule 4 definition) and he is in charge of the keys, vehicle and any insurance considerations and he drives the car to his unit. The Defendant certainly was not the person driving the car at the start of the alleged contravention. The Defendant can only state that their mechanic or one of his staff drove the car into the business park. Furthermore, it would be absurd if the mechanic and his staff at the unit are at risk of incurring parking charges each and every time they take charge of customer vehicles at or inside the inspection pit at their unit the business park. The Defendant cannot understand what contravention could possibly relate to a garage unit (which inevitably has vehicles on site for valid authorised reasons. There is no evidence of where the car was parked. Unlike ParkingEye v Beavis this is not a retail car park where all entering vehicles can be presumed to be parked outside in one of any bays with standard terms for shoppers. The Claimant is put to strict proof of:

- where the vehicle was in fact parked

- how it contravened a sign if it was at/inside the garage unit up on a jack or in the inspection pit as the Defendant believes,

- their legitimate interest in penalising customers of a garage mechanic (the Supreme Court Beavis case being fully distinguished in this respect) and

- how they believe they have any cause of action in circumstances where the registered keeper Defendant was neither keeper nor driver.

MW33

I am so grateful to you for taking the time to help me with this thank you for your latest advice.
I will add the new suggested paragraph 3.1 and continue my post/thread to benefit all.
Many thanks once again

Gr1pr

Dont forget to put in the correct date and year,  in paragraph 3 and in 3.1, especially as you never mentioned 2020 in your background information post  ( 2024 was mentioned   )

Coupon-mad

I got that date from your draft, @MW33

Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 23/06/2020