ECP claim via DCB Legal, 2025

curveball123

Coupon-mad said:

Albeit, if you put that paragraph earlier in the defence (which flows well, I think) make sure you aren't repeating this bit twice:

"Although costs do not usually apply in the small claims track (r.38.6(3)), the White Book notes they may be awarded for unreasonable conduct (r.27.14(2)(dg)) including in cases of late discontinuance."

Thanks so much - this is in paragraph 3 still, right ?

curveball123

Le_Kirk said:

The one I found by searching the forum was slightly different; this one was approved by @Coupon-mad and suggested it could be moved nearer the start of the defence; just make sure it flows well. 

The recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) underlines the importance of ensuring litigation is carried out by qualified and authorised professionals. It cuts into the heart of bulk litigation and rips it out. In this case, the POC signatory (Sarah Ensall) does not appear to be on the SRA list for DCB Legal. Even if acting 'under supervision', the binding decision in Speechlys holds that unauthorised staff must not conduct litigation. The court is invited to strike out the claim and grant the Defendant's costs on the indemnity basis due to wholly unreasonable conduct. Although costs do not usually apply in the small claims track (r.38.6(3)), the White Book notes they may be awarded for unreasonable conduct (r.27.14(2)(dg)) including in cases of late discontinuance.

You don't need to split it up into shorter paragraphs but, if you do, you will need to number them all.

Thank you. So this is my paragraph 3 - have I interpreted this correctly ?:

The recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) underlines the importance of ensuring litigation is carried out by qualified and authorised professionals. It cuts into the heart of bulk litigation and rips it out. In this case, the POC signatory (Sarah Ensall) does not appear to be on the SRA list for DCB Legal. Even if acting 'under supervision', the binding decision in Speechlys holds that unauthorised staff must not conduct litigation. The court is invited to strike out the claim and grant the Defendant's costs on the indemnity basis due to wholly unreasonable conduct. Although costs do not usually apply in the small claims track (r.38.6(3)), the White Book notes they may be awarded for unreasonable conduct (r.27.14(2)(dg)) including in cases of late discontinuance.

With regard to the allegation this is disputed for the following reason: On 8 December 2022, I made every reasonable effort to purchase a parking ticket at Euro Car Parks, Commercial Gate – Mansfield, using their designated payment provider, Paybyphone. I accessed my account via my mobile phone, followed all instructions, and entered my card details correctly. However, I did not receive a payment confirmation. Concerned, I immediately contacted Paybyphone support to verify the transaction.

Paybyphone responded 24 hours later and confirmed that their system had registered my account access at the relevant time, but due to a technical failure on their part, no payment was processed. They advised that retrospective payment was not possible and that, should a PCN be issued, I should appeal it. They also noted that Euro Car Parks could contact them directly to verify the incident.

Upon receipt of the PCN, I submitted an appeal through the POPLA process, clearly stating that the failure to process payment was due to a system error beyond my control. Despite this, my appeal was rejected without any acknowledgment of the efforts I made to comply with the payment process. I had entered the correct vehicle registration and card details, and the failure was entirely due to Paybyphone’s operational fault.

Euro Car Parks’ response was generic and failed to consider the specific circumstances of my case. Crucially, they did not contact Paybyphone to verify my account access and payment attempt, despite being advised of this option.

Responsibility for ensuring the reliability of the payment system lies with Euro Car Parks. As a customer acting in good faith, I should not be penalised for a failure in their chosen provider’s infrastructure.

Gr1pr

Much too long for one paragraph,  the mazur case should have its own number,  then renumber 

Condense the rest and change to 3rd party descriptions,  no I or MY for a start, not in a defence 

curveball123

Gr1pr said:

Much too long for one paragraph,  the mazur case should have its own number,  then renumber 

Condense the rest and change to 3rd party descriptions,  no I or MY for a start, not in a defence 

got it thanks! so refer to Defendent and Claimant ?

Gr1pr

Driver, keeper,  claimant,  defendant,  whatever suits, assume that you are describing it as a 3rd party viewer

curveball123

Gr1pr said:

Driver, keeper,  claimant,  defendant,  whatever suits, assume that you are describing it as a 3rd party viewer

Do I have to pay a counter claim fee ? This is what the next page states after completing my defence

Coupon-mad

No; you aren't doing a counterclaim.

Le_Kirk

Don't forget, your defence deadline is TODAY.

curveball123

Le_Kirk said:

Don't forget, your defence deadline is TODAY.

Thank you so much. I submitted at 9pm last night. What will happen next? Could this be rejected/still go to court?

Coupon-mad

You know what happens when because the 8 steps in the Template Defence thread (plus the more detailed info in post 2 of the NEWBIES thread) tells everyone, to stop us being asked!