DCB Legal/Euro car parks - overstay due to a faulty EV charging point

Le_Kirk

Defence date is as I wrote previously

Thatladydowntheroad

@car1980 Can't remember off the top of my head and I believe the signage has changed since then. It is a 24 hour petrol station and I haven't been able to find any info on how Euro Car parks designates charging times or if they are different to parking. Their site mentions EV charging and boasts that their ANPRs can detect any faults which is clearly untrue.

@Le_Kirk I've seen some confusion on the defence posted by @Coupon-mad - something to do with characters...? Is it worth editing a section to mention faulty charger? 
Becoming quite anxious and confused now, brain fog has been awful last few weeks.

Car1980

It'll be discontinued anyway, so it's all pretty moot. 

Just use the template defence and use this for paragraph 3:

3. The defendant entered the site in order to use the electric vehicle charger. They stopped correctly in the bay, plugged in the cord and paid for the charger's use. After this, the defendant exited the car park. It is denied any overstay took place and it is submitted that charging/refuelling is not parking in any case. The claimant has not supplied a copy of the contract they rely upon at any stage and the signage on site has since been changed.

Le_Kirk

Thatladydowntheroad said:

@Le_Kirk I've seen some confusion on the defence posted by @Coupon-mad - something to do with characters...?

Correct, their system doesn't like special characters such as < > and ".  Just avoid them and you will be fine.

kryten3000

Charging isn't parking and inability to move the vehicle frustrates the contract by "impossibility".

Remember the advice above to defend the Particulars of Claim only, don't add any information that adds to their case.   Keep your paragraph 3 as short as possible, details go in a Witness Statement if one is needed later on.

There is a character/line limit for filing Defences on the moneyclaim site.  The template defence is designed to fit but you can alter it if necessary to make it fit. Paragraph 10 can be left out if you are really stuck for space.

We used to email defences but too many were getting lost in the CNBC system.  Filing on the site means the defence is immediately marked as filed which prevents the claimant applying for a Default Judgment.

Thatladydowntheroad

 DRAFT FOR 3.

3. The claimant has not provided a contract in evidence, and the defendant’s sole purpose in entering the site was to use the electric vehicle charger. The governing TRO and bay signage expressly limit use to “electric vehicle charging only,” making occupancy lawful while actively charging. As the vehicle was plugged in and drawing power, it was not “parked” under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 or Highway Code definitions. Accordingly, an overstay charge cannot apply, as the vehicle’s activity—charging under the Public Charge Point Regulations 2023—was continuous and lawful throughout. 

OR 

3. The claimant has not supplied a copy of the contract they rely upon at any stage and the defendant entered the site to use the electric vehicle charger. The TRO and signage governing the bay specify its use “for electric vehicle charging only,” establishing that occupancy is lawful when active charging occurs. As the vehicle was plugged in and drawing power at the time, it was not ‘parked’ in contravention of any restriction but was using the space as intended. An overstay charge is not applicable where an electric vehicle was actively charging, as no period of stationary “parking” occurred under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 or the Highway Code definitions. The vehicle’s purpose and function within the bay were continuous and lawful—namely, the drawing of electrical current as intended under the Public Charge Point Regulations 2023. Only upon cessation of active charging could an overstay or parking contravention theoretically arise, meaning the alleged overstay is an impossibility in law. 

thoughts please?

Coupon-mad

Thatladydowntheroad said:

 DRAFT FOR 3.

3. The claimant has not provided a contract in evidence, and the defendant’s sole purpose in entering the site was to use the electric vehicle charger. The governing TRO and bay signage expressly limit use to “electric vehicle charging only,” making occupancy lawful while actively charging. As the vehicle was plugged in and drawing power, it was not “parked” under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 or Highway Code definitions. Accordingly, an overstay charge cannot apply, as the vehicle’s activity—charging under the Public Charge Point Regulations 2023—was continuous and lawful throughout. 

OR 

3. The claimant has not supplied a copy of the contract they rely upon at any stage and the defendant entered the site to use the electric vehicle charger. The TRO and signage governing the bay specify its use “for electric vehicle charging only,” establishing that occupancy is lawful when active charging occurs. As the vehicle was plugged in and drawing power at the time, it was not ‘parked’ in contravention of any restriction but was using the space as intended. An overstay charge is not applicable where an electric vehicle was actively charging, as no period of stationary “parking” occurred under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 or the Highway Code definitions. The vehicle’s purpose and function within the bay were continuous and lawful—namely, the drawing of electrical current as intended under the Public Charge Point Regulations 2023. Only upon cessation of active charging could an overstay or parking contravention theoretically arise, meaning the alleged overstay is an impossibility in law. 

thoughts please?

Either, and I hope you got the defence in?

Thatladydowntheroad

@Coupon-mad I managed to get it in on time and received a letter in the post... so I'm assuming I just wait now

Thatladydowntheroad

Update: 
Email from DCB Legal stating they intend to proceed (email below), unfortunately. This is exhausting! What are the chances I win now?

Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.

In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.

Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence.

Le_Kirk

Step 2 of the 8-steps in the template defence tread - all normal.  Check out the disco (discontinuances) thread by @Umkomaas