Euro Car Parks/DCB Legal PCN - Defence Assistance required please

Wolfflayed700

Hello everyone!

Massive thank you to everyone who has contributed to these threads, they have been so useful, not sure what I would have done without it!

I am currently drafting a defence using resources in other threads, here are some of the details regarding my claim form:

- Claim form issued on 28 July 2025
- Claimant is Euro Car Parks limited with the address for sending docs to DCB legal (not sure if that means DCB legal are representing Euro Car Parks)
- AoS via MCOL submitted on 06 Aug, so I am guessing I have around until the end of the month to submit my defence.

I have been using threads provided by coupon-mad, my defence is that I was not genuinely unaware of signs, I saw none of them when I parked.

Here is the PoC:
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX.
2. The dates of contravention are 28/04/2024 and the D was issued with PC(s) by the claimant.
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: A valid Pay by Phone Transaction.
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule  4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.02 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

Defence Draft: (This is essentially the same as shahib_02 defence which was linked in one of coupon-mads thread with some slight changes due to POC point 2 being different)

I will enter claim number and personal details in the defence I submit via MCOL.

1.     The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2.     The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, but NOT the driver at the time.

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No signs were displayed in clear positions on entering or parking. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

4.     The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5.     The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

I am planning to add Paragraphs 6 - 10 from the defence template thread.

I would appreciate any help anyone can provide or any suggestions.

Thanks all!

Coupon-mad

That's not the current Template Defence.

"Reason: A valid Pay by Phone Transaction".

Are you SURE it says that?

Gr1pr

Or maybe this paragraph 3 instead, especially if the defendant was not driving  ( admit nothing in a defence   )

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6624809/defence-against-euro-car-parks-ltd#latest

Bear in mind that the shahib defence was months ago based on different POC and using the old template too

Wolfflayed700

Coupon-mad said:

That's not the current Template Defence.

"Reason: A valid Pay by Phone Transaction".

Are you SURE it says that?

Hello, 

what is the current template defence is it this thread? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-with-added-admin-dra-costs-edited-in-2025/p1

And, yes, absolutely sure. Is this new?

Coupon-mad

They can't sue you for having a valid transaction! Show us a photo of the POC.

Wolfflayed700

Coupon-mad said:

They can't sue you for having a valid transaction! Show us a photo of the POC.

Sorry, not absolutely sure because i am wrong! It says "The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle the vehicle for breach of terms on the signs (the contract) Reason: The vehicle was parked without a valid pay by phone transaction."

Wolfflayed700

Gr1pr said:

Or maybe this paragraph 3 instead, especially if the defendant was not driving  ( admit nothing in a defence   )

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6624809/defence-against-euro-car-parks-ltd#latest

Bear in mind that the shahib defence was months ago based on different POC and using the old template too

Thank you! I will amend and post a new comment with an updated defence

Wolfflayed700

NEW DEFENCE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:

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. Referring to the POC: POC 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

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))'.

Coupon-mad

That'll do nicely. Get it submitted.

But don't disappear! This month, we need you:

PLEASE bookmark this thread below and do Public Consultation if you haven't done it yet. See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline! Just 2 weeks left but please don't rush it. You can do some then save it and come back to it as you have time.

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that.

I'm taking a closer look this week and we'll walk people through the questions, and tell you what I'm going to put and/or what sort of evidence you might wish to use for your response, if you agree with what we'll be saying from our experience.

I've covered up to question 20 already on that thread.

Whilst your answers must of course be your own, there are vital points to safeguard motorists interests to make, that many people may not think of without our guidance because we see cases every day and we know the legal background. There won't be a template - the survey is for you to reply in your words - but we'll help everyone with what to focus on.

Wolfflayed700

Coupon-mad said:

That'll do nicely. Get it submitted.

But don't disappear! This month, we need you:

PLEASE bookmark this thread below and do Public Consultation if you haven't done it yet. See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline! Just 2 weeks left but please don't rush it. You can do some then save it and come back to it as you have time.

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that.

I'm taking a closer look this week and we'll walk you through it. I should have all the first post 'how to respond to each question' advice ready by the end of this week.

I've made a start, covered up to question 9 already. Be patient with me as this is detailed and we don't think average motorists will know about raising the extra points otherwise.

There are vital points to safeguard motorists interests to make, that many people won't think of without our guidance. There won't be a template - the survey is for you to reply in your words - but we'll help everyone with what to focus on. 

Thank you, is it ok to drop you a message if I have any questions

Gr1pr

CM tends to ignore messages due to the sheer amount that she gets, usually unsolicited 

I wouldn't send one unless asked by the person to do so 

You should be using this thread for your questions, especially future questions