DOUBLE DIP OVERSTAY CLAIM - DCB LEGAL LTD | UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED |

dini2k

Hi all

basically I've been issued a county court claim for overstaying at a McDonalds car park, which is incorrect as I made two visits that day which their cameras didn't pick up.  which Im not surprised as the quality of the camera seems terrible.





If you could help me on how to proceed that would be great.
I have acknowledged AoS on the MCOL website 19/06/25
also sent SAR to UKPC and DCB LEGAL today 20/06/25 I know realise this is late but what have I got to lose.

Thanks in advance

DE_612183

1. Read the newbees thread.
2. Have you asked McDonalds to get the invoice quashed?

Car1980

Too late for McDonalds or their franchisee - it's now a live claim.

I wouldn't use the full template. You'd be "over-defending". I'd just keep it brief and wait for the inevitable discontinuance.


1. The Claimant states the Defendant's vehicle was parked for 10 hours, 6 minutes and 48 seconds at McDonald's in Failworth. This is completely false. Two separate visits were made and neither visit was for longer than permitted. This is a clear case of "double-dipping". 

2. ANPR double-dipping refers to a situation where an ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) camera incorrectly records a driver's entry and exit from a car park multiple times, leading to a false charge for overstaying. This often happens when a driver returns to the car park later on, and the camera fails to register the first exit.

3. No contractual breach took place and no money is owed to the Claimant.

4. It is requested that the case be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) where a statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim.

Coupon-mad

Yep that could be put in on MCOL. No need to email it in this case.

dini2k

Car1980 said:

Too late for McDonalds or their franchisee - it's now a live claim.

I wouldn't use the full template. You'd be "over-defending". I'd just keep it brief and wait for the inevitable discontinuance.


1. The Claimant states the Defendant's vehicle was parked for 10 hours, 6 minutes and 48 seconds at McDonald's in Failworth. This is completely false. Two separate visits were made and neither visit was for longer than permitted. This is a clear case of "double-dipping". 

2. ANPR double-dipping refers to a situation where an ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) camera incorrectly records a driver's entry and exit from a car park multiple times, leading to a false charge for overstaying. This often happens when a driver returns to the car park later on, and the camera fails to register the first exit.

3. No contractual breach took place and no money is owed to the Claimant.

4. It is requested that the case be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) where a statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim.

Thank you for your reply,

Should I wait the full 14 days to enter my defense on MCOL?

Gr1pr

There is never any need to wait, if the final defence is ready to be submitted 

Playing for time happens when more time is needed to draft a defence 

dini2k

Coupon-mad said:

Yep that could be put in on MCOL. No need to email it in this case.

As you believe I shouldn't use the full template, would this suffice to enter on MCOL

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

UK Parking Control Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1. The Claimant states the Defendant's vehicle was parked for 10 hours, 6 minutes and 48 seconds at McDonald's in Failsworth. This is completely false. Two separate visits were made and neither visit was for longer than permitted. This is a clear case of "double-dipping". 

2. ANPR double-dipping refers to a situation where an ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) camera incorrectly records a driver's entry and exit from a car park multiple times, leading to a false charge for overstaying. This often happens when a driver returns to the car park later on, and the camera fails to register the first exit.

3. No contractual breach took place and no money is owed to the Claimant.

4. It is requested that the case be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) where a statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim.

Statement of Truth

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:




Also, is there any need for para 3 as its a DCB LEGAL case?

TIA

Car1980

Your paragraph 1 is the same as paragraph 3 in the template defence in effect - a brief description of the circumstances.

All looks good to me.

Coupon-mad

But you don't need ANY of the headers or statement of truth on MCOL. Just the defence.