Euro Car Parks, DCB Legal court claim 2025

Jape_demino

Hello, 
My first time posting on here.

Firstly I would like to thank the individuals that have contributed to this forum as it has been a huge help in getting my head around the procedure involved with this claim.

I received an LoC (issued 24 Jun 2025) from by DCB legal for entering a parking space, of which only a small square section is managed by Euro Car Parks as can be seen in the photos. 

I have submitted an AOS on MCOL on 30/06/2025.

Up to this point I had ignored all letters prior to this stage as I didn't think it will come to this.

I contacted DCB Legal requesting evidence of the two separate contraventions that occurred on 09/07/2022 & 15/05/2023, they provided me with time stamped photos from euro car parks anpr camera that appear to show the length of stays to be 22m & 11m respectively.

As I understand, I will be copying all the paragraphs from the defense template by coupon-mad word for word apart from paragraph 3.

The registered keeper was not the driver, should I include this at this point?

1. The issue I have evidence is that the photos of the entry cannot be considered definitive and conclusive evidence of entry as it does not show the car physically entering the space.
2. The driver did not park but stayed in the car and waited, the signs state 'authorised vehicle parking only' but do not mention anything about using the space for anything else.

Should I add these points in paragraph P3.1 (re-worded to suit the format of a defense)?

Evidence From DCB LEGAL



Photo References of Car Park

Dropbox Link if images aren't posted:
Folder Includes: Claim Form, 2 pieces of Evidence from DCB Legal, Photo References of the Car Park.
hxxps://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/y95icc55dx9jxbyc8mkw2/AM7OA4-pq4gKa4JKznc0RJA?rlkey=fx9z9dogo5pvy488oqscoryrf&st=4da1nuzd&dl=0

Gr1pr

An LoC precedes a court claim,  presumably you received the LoC a couple of months ago 

Regardless,  you have a live Court Claim,  not an LoC   !

Coupon-mad is changing the template defence   ( no S in the word Defence   ) this week so wait for the latest advice and new template 

Yes you would add , but not the driver,  in paragraph 2

Coupon-mad

Yep I will do the new template defence this week - shorter - as I'm about to go on holiday & am aware it is needed. We are ditching the advice to email defences because the CNBC keep losing them and some of the stuff bulking out the template defence is old.

Jape_demino

Oh my bad I will edit the title and remove LoC,
thanks for the advice.
Also should I add the two points I raised or are they weak arguments? 

Oh right, so I assume I will be submitting on MCOL.
Well I will wait for the updated template since I have plenty of time before the deadline.
Much Appreciated   

Jape_demino

Sorry seems I can't edit the title, must be because I'm new

Gr1pr

Jape_demino said:

Sorry seems I can't edit the title, must be because I'm new

Correct,  you can edit it once your status changes from newbie to forumite 

Jape_demino

Hello,
I'm going to be submitting my defense soon using the new template,

Thoughts on this below? 

3. The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant for the alleged parking charges dated 09/07/2022 and 15/05/2023. On neither occasion was the vehicle parked within the area controlled or managed by Euro Car Parks Ltd. The Claimant’s photographic evidence fails to establish any contravention or the existence of an enforceable contract.

3.1 The Claimant is responsible only for a specific, marked section of bays within a larger mixed-use site. Their authority, signage, and terms apply exclusively to that designated area. The Claimant’s reliance on ANPR images is misplaced, as the evidence fails to demonstrate that the Defendant's vehicle entered or remained within the controlled zone on either occasion. The vehicle is shown in the Claimant’s own evidence merely driving past or parallel to the managed bays, not entering or occupying them. As such, the alleged period of stay is unsubstantiated and unreliable.

3.2 On both dates in question, the Defendant did not park or occupy any marked bay within the controlled area. The vehicle was present on-site only briefly, solely for the purpose of observing signage before departing. The Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and is bound by its Code of Practice, which at Sections 5.1 and 5.2 mandates a minimum grace period of at least five (5) minutes to allow motorists to read signage and decide whether to stay or leave. The Defendant did not park, and remained only momentarily, during which the signage failed to clearly and prominently communicate contractual terms. Therefore, no contract was formed.

Gr1pr

Consideration period,  not grace period 

Car1980

"Interesting" ANPR setup. It appears to photograph cars on adjacent land they appear not to have rights over.

Jape_demino

Thanks will change that now, much appreciated 

Coupon-mad

Looks fine if it all fits. If not, amalgamate your paragraphs and prune out the repetition.

Then pleeease come back in 2 weeks when we be further discussing the Public Consultation that we need ALL defendants to respond to.

If you want to be part of the push to change things in future, it's very important that people like you tell the Government NOW that:

a) you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be the SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 *almost* promised. As long as it is independent (and only ONE appeals service, not two involved in a race to the bottom) that will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court.

b).  THAT THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND ENGINEERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN'.

c). Tell them about your experience.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

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

We will discuss it on that thread.