G24 / DCB Legal - Claim Form - Defense Paragraph 2 + 3 Feedback Request

Fiddle_leaf1

Dear Parking Charge Forum experts,

I have received a Claim From for a parking contravention that took place in June 2020 at a local Homebase (long gone now) and I would be incredibly grateful if you could look at Paragraph 2 + 3 of my defence and give any constructive feedback before I send anything on. 

Below is a redacted copy of my Claim Form (the image isn't very sharp, apolgies. If you need anything clarifying please do let me know). 

I have submitted my Acknowledgment of Service (submitted 05/06/25) and I think I need to email my defence by Tuesday 1st July.

My main defence is: 
- I did not see the signs / know there was a time limit 
- There were covid restrictions in place at the time leading to a long, one-in, one-out queuing system which added at least 30 mins to the visit 
- There was no loss to the company I was visiting (Homebase) as we were in there for the full time (minus the queuing time) and the time spent in there was the time needed to complete our purchases. I have evidence that a transaction took place
- The charge is disproportionate to the ‘offence’

————

DEFENSE PARAGRAPHS: 

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. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 03/06/2020, 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.

3.1. Covid restriction were in place at the time of the alleged contravention at the Homebase store on Finchley Road, adding additional time to the required visit. A substantial one-in, one-out queuing system was in place upon arrival which added significant time to the visit (30+ mins minimum) which the defendant believes should be factored into any parking time limits in place at the time. The defendant believes no restrictions should have been in place during such unprecedented times. The defendant was shopping at The Homebase Store for the time that was necessary to complete their transactions (including additional time for queuing both in and outside the store) and has evidence that transactions took place, which are available to submit when required. The Defendant was unaware of parking restrictions in place. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions.

———

I’m not sure whether I should split section 3.1 into multiple sub-points (3.2, 3.3, etc) or if this is ok to keep together. I’m also not sure whether I should say that I feel ‘no restrictions should have been in place at the time’ as I’m not sure it’s relevant - even though I do feel this way!

Thanks in advance for any feedback you can give.

Coupon-mad

That's fine.

You could add that there can be no legitimate interest in penalising shoppers during the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic and lockdown rules in June 2020.

Fiddle_leaf1

Thanks Coupon-mad. 

That's great, I'll add that in for sure. 

All the best