ECP DCB LEGAL claim 2025

Coupon-mad

LoulayDoo94 said:

Apologies again, hopefully it is right this time!

Yes, thanks.

Same as literally every ECP DCB Legal claim thread this Summer. You could literally read half a dozen & copy what they put.

LoulayDoo94

I have done lots of searching the thread and although I do have reasons behind the overstay as mentioned in my initial post, none that I have found seem appropriate to my case. Do I just go with this one or do I need to add anything else?

Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 15/06/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  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. The driver defendant was a legitimate customer at the businesses on that retail park,  needing plenty of time to shop. No signage was seen or noted regarding any time limitations, so the defendant was completely unaware of any deadlines

Thanks for reading

LoulayDoo94

Also is this the only defence I submit or is there another one where I present my reasons? 

1505grandad

"No PCN was "issued on 15/06/2024" (the date of the alleged visit)"

The PoC state "contravention" not pcn "issued"

Coupon-mad

You've read an old one from a year ago.

Just read current threads from this Summer.

LoulayDoo94

I think this one fits, would this work?

Thanks again for all the help and input, I'll get it right eventually

The defendant was a genuine customer of the retail park businesses and required a reasonable amount of time to shop. No signage was observed or brought to the defendant’s attention regarding any parking time restrictions, and accordingly the defendant was wholly unaware of any such limitation. The defendant has always understood the car park to operate on a free-to-use basis and therefore had no reason to consider the existence of detailed terms and conditions. While it is accepted that signage may have been present, it was not sufficiently prominent or clear to have been seen or appreciated by the defendant, and under the principle established in Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000], terms that are not adequately brought to the attention of a motorist cannot be binding.

Coupon-mad

Yes that'll do. Once it is submitted, please take time to do this:

FIGHTBACK ALERT:

Please do the government's Public Consultation. We need every poster to complete this vital survey before the deadline.

See this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-now-extended-closes-friday-26th-september/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law. 

I've written some guidance to help focus new posters on the issues. I've covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

CLOSES ON FRIDAY 26th SEPTEMBER.

LoulayDoo94

@coupon-mad Thanks very much for all your help. I'm just completing the fightback survey now.

Gr1pr

Please change your thread title to something more suitable like 

ECP DCB LEGAL claim 2025