ECP claim via DCB Legal - Pay machine not working

lovedrivinghateparking

Thank you so much 

Coupon-mad

lovedrivinghateparking said:

Thank you so much 

This is an easy stage. Show us your planned para 3 if you wish.

Then, once your defence is in:

Please read this message and do the vital,  current Public Consultation in August:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81552148/#Comment_81552148

It's important that the Government hears from ordinary, good people with unfair charges who are facing scary court claims.

The link shows the two vital points to concentrate on, IMHO:

- banning DRA fee add-ons completely

- making sure a new SINGLE appeals service replaces POPLA and the IAS which are seen as not fully independent and involved in a 'race to the bottom'.

Click through to the main thread about the Consultation, Do not be deterred by the fact that some questions are for the parking industry only.

We are discussing how to respond.

The issues above are the IMPORTANT ones. Personally, mainly because it means the Code will come in quicker (no signs will have to be changed) I have no issue with PCs 'up to £100 cap' AS LONG AS DRA FEES ARE BANNED.

Please join us in doing this Consultation. Bookmark the main thread about it now. This is your one chance to make a difference re the proper regulation of private parking.

lovedrivinghateparking

Firstly I will be joining the consultation as soon as my health allows.  This is why I have only managed to respond today.

I have written the following for my defence, any feedback is welcome.  I looked, but was unable to find anything in the IA to support my case, so i have not added any quotes.  Is this going to be a problem?

1. Facts and sequence of events
   I entered the ***** car park in July 2024.  ANPR is used on entry to dertimen length of stay and appropriate charge on exit.  I returned to the carpark an hour or so later, I went to the payment machine to PAY for my session.  Both payment machines (the only two I am aware of in the 30 plus years I have been using this facility) were not working. There wasn’t any information on or around the machines with details of what to do in this situation.  There isn’t any way of communicating with anyone from the machine.  I remembered from previous visits that there is a help button at the exit barrier.  The exit is controlled by this barrier.  ANPR recognises that you have paid and the barrier opens on approach.  As I approached, I saw that both barriers were in the open position.  I saw another car drive straight through.  I concluded that the operators of the car park were aware of the payment issue and in order to not trap anyone, they were letting everyone out.  I remember thinking that was great customer service and very sensible. 
   The only way to exit the car park is with the barrier open.  This is achieved by paying and ANPR reading the numberplate and allowing the barrier to open OR the car park operator opening it.  The fact that it was open led me to the reasonable assumption that the car park operators were aware of THEIR issue and had invited users of the car park to leave. It is very unreasonable to then receive a PCN as there wasn’t any contravention in the first instance.  The fact that an appeal was not submitted is a moot point.  A contravention did not occur.  

2. The first correspondence I received was from DCBL almost a year after I parked. They had used means I am not aware of to obtain my address, as I am not publicly visible on the electoral roll.  It transpires that when I moved from the address the DVLA had on record I did not update my address with them.  A complete oversight with the stresses of selling the family home after a messy divorce.  As a result I did not receive any PCN’s as my Royal Mail forwarding had also ended.  I acted at the first opportunity (demand from DCBL) by messaging Euro Car Parks via a form not intended for PCN appeals because they do not offer their customers any contact details.  They responded saying I had no right of appeal and that I could only communicate with DCBL.  I called DCBL and was advised I had no right of appeal and I had to pay their extortionate fees.  DCBL then sent me a series of threatening and intimidating letters.  They also bombarded me with very frequent automated telephone calls, causing a huge amount of worry and distress.

Car1980

determen = determine

"The fact that an appeal was not submitted is a moot point."

Delete, doesn't matter.

Delete the entirety of paragraph 2 - again, it doesn't matter.

After that you need to convert it into THIRD person I'm afraid. So use "The Defendant" instead of "I".

lovedrivinghateparking

Thank you Car1980.  will fix now

Not_A_Hope

Your defence statement should be written in the third person i.e. the defendant or the driver etc, not I or me. I am not sure I would write so much in para 2 about the correspondence. Keep it short and punchy and focus on the alleged breach of contract not issues about not updating the DVLA or lack of notifications.

Coupon-mad

Can I check you are using the short template defence? It's just that there are no sub-headings now like 'Facts and sequence of events'.

Also try to make that addition a lot more concise or the Defence won't fit in MCOL.

lovedrivinghateparking

Thanks for all replies - it is very much appreciated

I'm using the template from this link

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1 

If there is another version that I should use, I would be very grateful if you can point me in the right direction

Coupon-mad

Of course that's it, which you know because it's a sticky thread (an 'Announcement' pinned at the top of the forum) and it's also linked in the NEWBIES thread. Rest assured, we haven't hidden a secret one somewhere!

My point is you were using old sub-headings which made me think you might be using an old defence.

lovedrivinghateparking

Can you confirm that the defence template I should use, starts with this paragraph:

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

and not the rtf version that starts with:

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT
1.I am xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx of (ADDRESS) , and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.