Euro Car Parks, DCB Legal LTD, Court CLaim 2025

Gr1pr

No it doesn't,  so perhaps get your defence submitted before the end of the month,  just to be sure

Rico30

Good evening, 

got a good portion of my defence today, however wasnt sure what to put in the XXXXs below, any guidance would be great,

23. The Supreme Court clarified that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in parking cases, which

must be determined on their own facts. That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test,

given the location and clear signs with the charges in the largest/boldest text. Rather than

causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, that case, in particular, the brief,

conspicuous yellow & black warning signs - see EXHIBIT XXXX - set a high bar that this

Claimant has failed to reach.

24. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a

'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing

directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present

them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor 'concealed pitfalls or

traps'. (See EXHIBIT XXXX for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis)

Gr1pr

You should be using the new July 2025 template defence in announcements,  around 10 or 12 paragraphs 

Rico30

Okay Thanks. 
this is my input of the defence  please let me know if i should chnage or add anythign  

3.1 The parking charge in question relates to an alleged overstay at a retail car park nearly three years ago. Due to the significant time that has passed, I cannot recall the precise details of that day. Importantly, there are two other individuals insured to drive the vehicle in question. As such, I cannot state definitively whether I was the driver at the time.

3.2 The car park is a shared-use facility serving multiple retail outlets and leisure businesses, including clothing stores, department stores, food establishments, and Everlast Gym. I have been a gym member since 2020 and continue to use the car park regularly for legitimate visits.

3.3 The typical duration of a gym visit, particularly at Everlast Gym, can easily exceed two hours. This includes warm-up, strength and cardio training, followed by the use of the sauna and shower facilities. It is also common for customers to visit nearby retail stores or food venues either before or after using the gym, making longer stays entirely reasonable for regular users like myself.

3.4 I did not contact the landowner at the time, as I was unaware of their involvement or how to do so. However, as a paying gym member and frequent user of the retail facilities, I consider myself a legitimate customer of the land served by the car park.

3.5 At no time did I act with the intention of abusing or misusing the parking facilities. My use of the car park has always been consistent with its purpose — namely, for customers accessing services located within the premises. In this instance, any stay beyond the stated two hours would have been entirely reasonable given the services used.

Gr1pr

A defence is written in the 3rd person , no ME, MY , I

Far too much detail,  the template says CONCISE,  a few sentences at the most, save the explanations and waffle for your future Witness Statement 

Rico30

Okay , is this any better? 

3.1
The parking charge relates to an alleged overstay at a retail park almost three years ago. Due to the time passed, the identity of the driver cannot be confirmed. Multiple drivers are insured on the vehicle.

3.2
The location is a shared-use car park serving various retail and leisure units, including a gym. It is routinely used for its intended purpose by legitimate customers of these businesses.

3.3
Use of the gym and surrounding services often exceeds two hours. The site is designed to accommodate longer visits from genuine patrons.

3.4
No contact was made with the landowner as their role was not apparent at the time. The driver was a customer of the on-site businesses.

3.5
There was no attempt to misuse the facilities. Parking was in line with the advertised use — for customers only

Gr1pr

3.1 should really add a short ending to paragraph 2

The rest should be pruned and consolidated into a p3 only 

Ensure that your p3 addresses the POC 

Post a redacted picture of the POC after hiding the VRM details first 

Edit your thread title to something more suitable such as 

Parking company name, lawyers name,  and add 2025 court claim 

Rico30

Added 3.1 to 2 

How should i adress POC? 
ive attached the picture  

And title changed !  

Gr1pr

Presumably the defendant complied with the terms and conditions on that site, where a gym stay usually involves putting the VRM into a hidden keypad in the gym itself 

The POC state that it's an alleged overstay,  so presumably the defence is regarding the right to use the car park for an extended period, so no breach occurred   ?

Or 

Its nearly 2 years ago and the defendant cannot recall who was driving or if any keypad was used   ?

Your 2 doesn't need to reiterate the POC 

Make your mind up and alter 2 accordingly and rebut the POC in 3 

You are not being asked to assume what happened,  either you do know the routine there,  know the story,  or, you haven't a clue 

Coupon-mad

Yes, I think this needs saying in para 3 and any overstay is denied because the Defendant was not merely a shopper, but a gym member with an extended time allowance:

The POC state that it's an alleged overstay, so presumably the defence is regarding the right to use the car park for an extended period, so no breach occurred.