DCB Legal/ECP Defence Help (Gatwick South BP Connect)

hiking_green

Hello people,

First of all a big thank you in advance to all those who help fight these cases. Have scoured the forum in the past week and appreciate all the informative and successful help available. 

Any feedback on the below defence would be greatly appreciated.

Received a claim letter from DCB Legal dated 16th September.

AOS submitted on 02/10/2025.

POC:
1.The defendant is indebted to the claimant for a parking charge(s) PC issued to vehicle ******** at BP Connect Petrol Station Gatwick Sth.
2. The date of contravention is 05/10/2024 and the D was issued 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: Your Vehicle has overstayed the maxim time period allowed.
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012,
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170 being the total of the PC(s) and damages
2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act etc

DEFENCE:
3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. 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 Claimant is well aware that the land referred to, BP Connect Petrol Station Gatwick STH, is not relevant land under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and as such the Registered Keeper is not subject to Schedule 4 of the Act. The Defendant is not aware of who the Driver was and so the Claimant cannot hold the Defendant liable.


Is the above adequate for this case? Is there need to include the recent judgement of the likes of Sarah Ensal unable to act as/on behalf of the claimant?

Should the defence be emailed or submitted on MCOL as the guide advises?

Thank you!!

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 16/09/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 20/10/25

That looks like the standard defence for any airport (not relevant land) scenario.  The defence should be submitted using MCOL.

1505grandad

Should the "falsehood" be included as per the following post:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81598011/#Comment_81598011

Coupon-mad

Yes, as long as they have not previously appealed as driver(?) the Defendant could put as 3.

3.  Referring to the POC, the allegations and liability are denied: the Defendant is the registered keeper but is not indebted to the Claimant. Regarding paragraph 4 of the POC, the Claimant knows or should know that their statement is untrue: Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA') can never apply to land lying within the boundaries of an Airport (Gatwick). It is not 'relevant land'. Airports, Ports and railways etc. are subject to byelaws and as such, are specifically excluded from the POFA keeper liability law. The Claimant is unable to hold the keeper liable under the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the POFA, yet the POC includes a clear falsehood, signed under a statement of truth by an unauthorised staff member of the legal representatives.

Then the template's para 10 can be replaced with the Mazur paragraphs (as 10 and 11).

hiking_green

Thanks all! 

@Coupon-mad thank you. No appeals made. All letters have been ignored this far.