Defended claim: DCB Legal / Smart Parking

Coupon-mad

Post 2 of the NEWBIES thread tells you all you need to know.

Lowres

I've just received the N1SDT Claim Form and response pack through the post and have acknowledged service as per the guide in the Newbies thread post 2. I will be drafting my defence from the template later today/tomorrow, then it's waiting for the Directions Questionnaire If I've read things correctly?

Le_Kirk

What is the date of issue of the claim form? You don't need to draft a defence, just add to the the end of paragraph #2 and write your paragraph #3 refuting what the POC on the claim form states. Add those paragraphs to the template and put them in MCOL defence box, save and submit. The act of saving checks if you have used any unacceptable symbols. The DQ will appear (by post) in due course.

Lowres

I've been away for the last week or so and not had opportunity to put in my defence so I'm looking at it now. It seems simple enough, though I just wanted some thoughts on paragraph 3. The claim form mentions 4 points in the particulars of the claim

1) The Defendant is indebted to the claimant for a parking charge issued to the vehicle at xxx retail park

2) The of the contravention was 22/06/2025

3) The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms of the signs (the contract). Reason: your vehicle has overstayed the maximum time period allowed

4) In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012 Schedule 4

Then there are 3 more points about the claimants costs

1. £170 being the total of the PC and damages
2. Interest at the rate of 8%per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daly rate of £0.04 until judgment or sooner payment
3. Costs and court fees

My para #2 I will add that I was the driver.

For paragraph #3 can I simply put something along the lines of not having seen any clear signage limiting the car park to two hours of parking and mistakenly having thought that it was still a maximum of 3 hours as it had been for many years and left the retail park after 2hr 27mins? I tried contacting the owners of the retail park to cancel the PC but could not get hold of anyone and was unable to get it cancelled by the retailers as I had not made any purchases so could not prove I was a customer?

Coupon-mad

Unless there was a disabled person in the car (which adds an extra legal point) I'd deny owing any parking charge or damages and state that this retail park has offered shoppers 3 hours free parking as for many years. Drivers are entitled to rely on this unless a change of terms is extremely well advertised on site, because there would be no reason to seek out new terms let alone be expected to re-read generic signage on every visit.

Then state that the Claimant is put to strict proof that they had landowner authority to reduce the 3 hours free that the Defendant relied upon, and to show contemporaneous photo proof that they complied with the 4 month requirement for additional, very prominent signs at the entrance to alert drivers of a material change.

Lowres

How about something like:

I deny owing any parking charge or damages. The retail park has for many years offered 3 hours of free parking. Drivers are entitled to rely on this unless a change of terms is extremely well advertised on site, because there would be no reason to seek out new terms let alone be expected to re-read generic signage on every visit. I did not see any such signage at the entrance to the car park informing of a change to the maximum allowed parking stay. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they had landowner authority to reduce the 3 hours free that the Defendant relied upon, and to show contemporaneous photo proof that they complied with the 4 month requirement for additional, very prominent signs at the entrance to alert drivers of a material change.

Coupon-mad

Defences are not in the first person.

Lowres

Good point, thanks for pointing that out. How about this?

The defendant denies owing any parking charge or damages. The retail park has for many years offered 3 hours of free parking. Drivers are entitled to rely on this unless a change of terms is extremely well advertised on site, because there would be no reason to seek out new terms let alone be expected to re-read generic signage on every visit. The defendant did not see any such signage at the entrance to the car park informing of a change to the maximum allowed parking stay. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they had landowner authority to reduce the 3 hours free that the Defendant relied upon, and to show contemporaneous photo proof that they complied with the 4 month requirement for additional, very prominent signs at the entrance to alert drivers of a material change.

Coupon-mad

Yep, perfect (within the template defence).

Lowres

Thanks, I'll get it submitted later today! :)