Euro Car Parks Claim Form Defence Draft

Lewco

Hi everyone, 
I have followed the defence template and got my defence copied into word with my own part in paragraph 3. Could someone look at my draft please and see if it's good?

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.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out
below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3.

“Indebted to the Claimant” – I made payment on the day which I have bank statement for proof of timestamp.

“Reason: no valid pay and display/permit was purchased” – Again, I made payment on my time of arrival and displayed in my window of the car. I could not enter my registration number into the machine as the machine was not registering keystrokes.

“£170 being the total of the PC(s) and damages” – what damages and why is it £170?

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Gr1pr

Add,   and driver   , to the end of paragraph 2, if true 

Paragraph 3 should be written in the 3rd person,   no  I 

You are the defendant,  and I am presuming that you were the driver too

Lewco

 Gr1pr said

Add,   and driver   , to the end of paragraph 2, if true 

Paragraph 3 should be written in the 3rd person,   no  I 

You are the defendant,  and I am presuming that you were the driver too

Fab that's been added to paragraph 2

And I have rewritten paragraph 3 as follows:

“Indebted to the Claimant” – The Defendant made payment on the day which they have bank statement for proof of timestamp.

“Reason: no valid pay and display/permit was purchased” – The defendant made payment on their time of arrival and displayed in their window of the car. They could not enter their registration number into the ticket machine as it would not register the keystrokes they were entering.

“£170 being the total of the PC(s) and damages” – what damages and why is it £170?

Anything else I can add onto paragraph 3 or do you think that is good enough? The parts to the POC are just stating where it happened, date of PC, interest rate and costs and court fees

Gr1pr

Remove the questions,  it's a defence,  the extra spurious charges are dealt with in the template,  but use the NO PCN can be £170 argument seen in other recent cases 

Dont repeat the POC either, look at other recent paragraph 3's where it addresses the POC,  also adding the faulty machine details,  but as seen in other recent pdt machine error cases

You will be told when it's good enough 

Lewco

Gr1pr said:

Remove the questions,  it's a defence,  the extra spurious charges are dealt with in the template,  but use the NO PCN can be £170 argument seen in other recent cases 

Dont repeat the POC either, look at other recent paragraph 3ms where it addresses the POC,  also adding the faulty machine details,  but as seen in other recent pdt machine error cases

You will be told when it's good enough 


This is the claim form I have received below, 

Should I go with:
3. The defendant asserts that the Private parking charge is unjust and should be cancelled. The vehicle in question which was parked in the car park had paid sufficient parking tarrifs for the alloted time they were staying for with a valid pay and display permit located on their car. The defendant was unable to enter their registration into the parking terminal as it was not registering the keystrokes when inputted so had to leave that information blank.

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do. The case won't see a hearing anyway. Everyone (hundreds of posters in the first half of 2025 alone) with a single PCN claim from DCB Legal, has easily beaten these.

DCB Legal will discontinue by the New Year.

No hearing, no costs, nowt scary.

But it is a national disgrace and a drain on Society, in terms of money and anxiety.

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 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 impartial (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 OFFERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN' THAT ONLY DUPED VICTIMS PAY. DRAS LIKE DCB LEGAL MAKE NO MONEY IF THEY HANDLE DISPUTES IN THE SPIRIT OF THE APPEALS CHARTER, WHICH IS WHY THEY ALWAYS PLOUGH ON TO COURT CLAIMS AND CCJs, RATHER THAN OFFERING REAL RESOLUTION AT PRE-ACTION STAGE.

c). Tell them about your experience and the complete and utter waste of court resources caused on a grand scale by DCB Legal,

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

Do it this month pleeease! We will discuss it on that thread next week if you want ideas.

Lewco

Coupon-mad said:

Yep that'll do. The case won't see a hearing anyway. Everyone (hundreds of posters in the first half of 2025 alone) with a single PCN claim from DCB Legal, has easily beaten these.

DCB Legal will discontinue by the New Year.

No hearing, no costs, nowt scary.

But it is a national disgrace and a drain on Society, in terms of money and anxiety.

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 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 impartial (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 OFFERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN' THAT ONLY DUPED VICTIMS PAY. DRAS LIKE DCB LEGAL MAKE NO MONEY IF THEY HANDLE DISPUTES IN THE SPIRIT OF THE APPEALS CHARTER, WHICH IS WHY THEY ALWAYS PLOUGH ON TO COURT CLAIMS AND CCJs, RATHER THAN OFFERING REAL RESOLUTION AT PRE-ACTION STAGE.

c). Tell them about your experience and the complete and utter waste of court resources caused on a grand scale by DCB Legal,

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

Do it this month pleeease! We will discuss it on that thread next week if you want ideas.

Amazing, thank you so much i'll add it into my defence and go onto pushing the government!

Gr1pr

Typo in paragraph 3, should say tariffs & allotted

Lewco

Gr1pr said:

Typo in paragraph 3, should say tariffs & allotted

yeah i noticed when i pasted it in, but thank you for noticing it!