HELP! Euro Car Parks PCN - No Parking Zone

Crispy_Pizza212

Hi

I've been taking advice from this forum since the original PCN issue date of 30/03/2024.

Today i have received a Small Claims court form for the following:

Reason - Your Vehicle Was Parked in A No Parking Area

Amount - £188.68
Court fee - £35
Legal Rep Fee - £50
Total - £273.68

I have placed the image below, they're claiming that because the door had a notice on it saying 'No Parking Access Required at all times' that I wasn't allowed to park there. There are no signs in that entire area to say it was a restricted parking zone, all the video footage/evidence i hold shows that there are no signs other than this one on the door. 

Additionally, there are no markings for parking spaces throughout the entire site also. I'm concerned that a CCJ is going to significantly affect me. 

What do you think my chance are here? Any help at this point or direction would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Gr1pr

Presumably ECP via DCB Legal   ?

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below,  also post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

You will not get a CCJ if you follow our advice here 

Car1980

Well, your chances of winning if you put any old defence in are 100% because they will just discontinue as always.

But use the template defence and use something like this for paragraph 3. Feel free to cut some of the template down if you prefer to file it online so it won't exceed 1080 words.


3. (a) The defendant parked their vehicle in a clear area of the car park where no signage or markings indicated parking was not permitted.
3. (b) A lone sign stating nothing more than "No parking - access required at all time" was attached to a shipping container approximately 8 metres away. The inference is that a parked vehicle would block access to the doors, and so the Defendant parked some distance away so that access was not impeded.

3. (c) In any case, the signage does not constitute a contract. There is no offer or mention of money; merely an instruction.

3. (d) the Claimant appears to rely solely on this sign. Even if it was a valid contract, it would constitute a "forbidding contract" where no offer actually exists and no consideration could be exchanged.
3. (e) No contract exists between the Claimant and Defendant and it follows that no contract exists to have been breached.

Coupon-mad

Yep, you'll win. Copy any other DCB Legal Euro Car Parks defence from any of the hundreds of threads like yours this year.

But also get your revenge: please read this message and do the vital,  current Public Consultation this month before it closes:

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

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

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

- banning '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 currently discussing how to respond. Please join us in doing this Consultation. This is your one chance to make a difference re the proper regulation of private parking.

Crispy_Pizza212

Hi, sorry for the delayed reply & thanks for the help thus far, the issue date was 08/08/2025 & yes it is DCB legal OBO Euro car parks. The below image shows the particulars of the claim.

Also, another interesting thing that i have found since doing an FOI request to them, they issued the fine to me at 13:18:28 and their ANPR camera shows that i entered the site at 13:17:48. So 40 seconds after my arrival they have issued a fine for parking in an "apparent" 'No Parking Area'. I have video footage to show that all around me there are no signs saying it was a no parking area!

Coupon-mad

Same as all the other threads. Copy any other DCB Legal Euro Car Parks defence from any of the hundreds of threads like yours this year.

Crispy_Pizza212

Hi Guys

I have until Thursday this week to provide my defence, I saw from the various forums that I should leave submission of my defence to the last minute (I have already completed the acknowledgement of service). 

Should i submit my defence through the MCOL website, or as stated in forums, send it via email? if so, what's the email address (sorry, i'm struggling to find one).

At this stage I shouldn't provide my evidence i.e. images, videos etc? This come later, is that correct?

Please see my below defence, i have highlighted some points for the following reasons - the claim is for "Your vehicle was parked in a NO Parking Area"

1. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim.

2. The Particulars of Claim are sparse, incoherent and fail to meet CPR 16.4 requirements. They disclose no clear cause of action, failing to state how the alleged sum arose, the specific contractual terms relied upon, or the quantum calculation. The claim is therefore inadequately pleaded.

3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle XXXX on 30/03/2024.

4. The Defendant denies that any contract was formed with the Claimant. No adequate or prominent signage was in place to communicate any terms and conditions at the location of parking. The area where the vehicle was parked contained no visible “no parking” signs, no bay markings, and no indication that stopping was prohibited. This is supported by contemporaneous photographic and video evidence.

5. The defendant parked their vehicle in a clear area of the car park where no signage or markings indicated parking was not permitted.

6. The Claimant asserts that signage onsite stated “No parking within the service area at any time.” The Defendant avers that such signage was absent from the location in question. Any signage present was either not in proximity to the parked vehicle or incapable of forming a binding contract.

7. The Defendant requested evidence of signage from DCB Legal Ltd, in the signage provided, it is not the correct car park in question and it also provides no evidence of the signage mentioned in point 6.

8. The Claimant is basing their claim entirely on an image stating ‘No Parking’, however, no such sign was present and is supported by photographic evidence. 

9. A lone sign stating nothing more than "No parking - access required at all time" was attached to a shipping container approximately 8 metres away. The inference is that a parked vehicle would block access to the doors, and so the Defendant parked some distance away so that access was not impeded.

10. In any case, the signage does not constitute a contract. There is no offer or mention of money; merely an instruction.

11. the Claimant appears to rely solely on this sign. Even if it was a valid contract, it would constitute a "forbidding contract" where no offer actually exists and no consideration could be exchanged.

12. No contract exists between the Claimant and Defendant and it follows that no contract exists to have been breached.

13. The Claimant is put to strict proof of:

a. The existence, location, size, wording, and lighting of all signage relied upon.

b. The precise location of the Defendant’s vehicle in relation to such signage.

c. That such signage complied with the BPA Code of Practice. 

14. The Defendant does not believe the Claimant has the necessary legal interest or landowner authority to bring this claim. A request for disclosure of the relevant landowner contract was refused. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has full legal standing and authority from the landowner to enforce terms and recover sums in its own name.

15. The Defendant avers that the claim includes an unrecoverable additional sum, described as “damages” or “debt recovery costs,” which are an attempt at double recovery. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 established that only the core parking charge (if valid) may be recoverable, not any enhanced sums.

16. In the absence of clear terms, adequate signage, and landowner authority, no liability arises. The claim is without merit, misconceived, and should be struck out.

17. Further, the Parking Charge Notice was issued just 40 seconds after the Defendant entered the car park. This is a clear breach of the mandatory grace period required by the BPA Code of Practice, which stipulates that drivers must be allowed sufficient time to read signage and decide whether to remain. The unreasonable and predatory issuing of a charge within seconds of arrival demonstrates that no contract was capable of being formed.

What are your thoughts guys?

Thanks

Crispy_Pizza212

Car1980

All good. Don't fret though because they'll discontinue anyway. No advantage in leaving it until the last minute. 

Not sure DCB Legal even bother reading people's defences. They probably get 200 coming through a week.

Photos etc. are for the witness statement, but it's unlikely you'll get that far.

Crispy_Pizza212

Thanks. Shall I submit it via email or the MCOL website as im struggling to access the site currently.

is there an email address I can send it too? 

Also car1908 - thanks for your points and help for defence response! 

Car1980

Online is easier, but depends if it fits in the character box.

Feel free to use email but you must add the statement of truth at the end and sign it.

Email address is in the stickied guide I think.

Coupon-mad

Crispy_Pizza212 said:

Thanks. Shall I submit it via email or the MCOL website as im struggling to access the site currently.

is there an email address I can send it too? 

Yes. Surely you've seen this on other threads? We used to always email defences. And there are several people finding the same issues as you, e.g.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6627842/uk-cps-claim-form-county-court/p2