Euro Car Parks and DCB Claim Form (issued July 2025)

CF_Noob

Completely wrong car.

Coupon-mad

OK and she told them that on appeal and they offered to settle for £20? 

CF_Noob

No. she never responded to the original PCN (as lawyer friend told them not necessary to reply).

Coupon-mad

Oh OK. No worries!

CF_Noob

@Coupon-mad So good just to file statement of defence as is, without mention of Reg. error (by driver)?

CF_Noob

@Coupon-mad Are people also paying fees to counterclaim against DCB for costs, e.g. filing counterclaim, obtaining legal advice, etc.?

Coupon-mad

No. Costs are not a counterclaim.

Gr1pr

As above, plus most victims don't have a valid legal reason to make a counterclaim 

Just follow the advice in the newbies sticky thread in announcements second post,  plus the defence template thread 

Don't overthink this stage  !  ( and don't try dreaming up retaliatory schemes,  just follow the process and the free advice , meaning that you aren't paying for legal advice and you cannot normally claim it back in these cases anyway , or at most maybe £50 , it's the small claims track, not a gravy train  )

CF_Noob

Thanks.

@Coupon-mad and @Gr1pr:  Driver has provided some updates that I want to reflect in para 3 (see wording in bold / underline) and would like to get some thoughts please?  Specifically, it seems she was using a parking APP at the relevant time rather than an actual pay and display machine and at time of alleged defence she took a picture showing PCN as £70 (but reduced to £40 if paying within 30 days) --- Claim Form is suggesting £140 per contravention (meaning that DCB believes they can double the PCN amount).  @Johnersh or @bargepole, I've seen you reference elsewhere and wonder if anything you think relevant to add or redact in my para 3 as well please.

3. Referring to the Particulars of Claim (PoC), paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied as no contravention is acknowledged.  Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied other than confirmation that the Defendant is the registered keeper. On the date of the alleged first contravention, the Defendant is able to demonstrate a payment was made on the relevant date. On the date of the alleged second contravention, the Defendant has been advised that the driver attempted to use a parking APP to pay for a parking permit but was unable to do so due to technology malfunction – the driver is a regular user of the parking and can demonstrate a consistent pattern of payment. No contract was formed between the two parties on the alleged date of the second contravention.  Additionally, the Defendant understands the signage at the relevant car park makes reference to a the possibility of a £70 PCN and therefore, it is unclear how a figure of £140 (per PCN) has been arrived at and on what basis. 

Thanks in advance.

Coupon-mad

Don't think you need that. The Template already covers the standard added £70.