ecp + starbucks = court (help needed)

apexd123

Hi all — hoping for some help with a DCB Legal claim (ECP) after a Starbucks drive-through visit

I’ve read the NEWBIES thread and I’m now at the stage of preparing my Defence. I’d really appreciate some guidance on what points to include.

Background (brief):

• I was travelling for a medical training day and stopped at Starbucks drive-through, which happens to be within an ECP-managed car park (I genuinely didn’t realise this at the time).

• Starbucks had serious delays due to technical issues. (took at least 20 mins)

• They then made the wrong drink and ignored my spouse’s allergens, so I had to queue again. (this must have taken about 30 mins - my spouse was not impressed - i should be claiming against them! - although i wont)

• Once corrected, I stopped briefly to take medication with my drink before driving off.

• At no point during the visit did it feel like I was “parking” — the entire time I was in the drive-through queue or waiting for my corrected order.

• This long delay, caused entirely by Starbucks, triggered a Parking Charge Notice.

I contacted Starbucks multiple times but they’ve refused to help cancel the charge.

I ignored the debt collector letters (before I found the forum) and have now received a County Court Claim Form from DCB Legal on behalf of ECP. Acknowledgment of Service has been submitted on MCOL.

---

My intended Defence points (need help wording / structuring):

• I was a genuine paying customer, using the drive-through exactly as intended.

• The extended time was caused solely by delays and errors by Starbucks, not by any misuse of the car park.

• Signage was not prominent or compliant with BPA standards:

  • The first sign is placed on the passenger-side kerb at a right angle — easily missed while driving in.

  • No clear signs en route to or within the drive-through queue.

  • No warning that merely queuing/service delays count as “parking”.

• No driver can reasonably be expected to abandon a drive-through queue to search for signage.

• The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss — it has now inflated to almost £300.

---

What I need help with
Could anyone advise the strongest legal angles for this scenario? I want to ensure my Defence is properly structured — e.g. unclear signage, no contract formed, frustration of contract due to Starbucks service failure, no breach by the driver, double recovery of costs, etc.

Thanks in advance for the support 🙏

btw Starbucks sucks! Home brews and support small coffee businesses only from now on! (i would call off my boycott if they showed some support!)

Gr1pr

Please post 

The issue date from the top right of the claim form below and also post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

Post the date that you completed the AOS stage online on MCOL 

Then , as you will be using the template defence by coupon mad,  post your first proposals for your paragraphs 2 and 3 below,  for feedback and critique

apexd123

TY,

Issue date: 8 oct 25

Defendant

Particulars of Claim:

1.The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C)_for a Parking Charge (PC) issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at Capital Quay - Salford Quays.
2. The date of contravention is 27/10/2024 and the D was issued with a PC 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: No Valid Pay And Display/permit Was Purchased.
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170.00 being the total of the PC and damages
2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.04 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fee

amount claimed: 182.68
court fee £35
legal rep costs: £50
total £67.68

AOS MCOL: 24/10/2025

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 and driver.

3.3. On the material date the Defendant visited the Starbucks drive-through located within the site. The sole purpose of the visit was to purchase a drink whilst travelling to a medical training day. The Defendant remained with the vehicle throughout and was at all times either:

• moving within the queue, or

• waiting due to significant delays caused by Starbucks’ technical and operational failures, including an incorrectly prepared order which required the Defendant to rejoin a lengthened queue with slow service.

At no point did the Defendant park or leave the vehicle. The duration onsite was solely due to issues arising from Starbucks’ service, including the need to have an allergen-related mistake corrected. Upon finally receiving the correct drink, the Defendant paused briefly to take prescribed medication before safely departing.

There was no adequate or prominent signage at the entrance or within the drive-through queue to alert drivers that queuing for service could constitute “parking”, nor any warning that delays outside the driver’s control would give rise to a parking charge. The entrance to the estate is a sharp left turn from traffic lights on the main road, where the only signage is positioned on the passenger-side kerb, perpendicular to the direction of travel, and cannot reasonably be seen by a driver manoeuvring into the estate. The Claimant is put to strict proof of compliant, prominent signage capable of forming any contractual terms.

No reasonable driver would be expected to abandon a live drive-through queue to search for hidden terms. Any alleged contract was never capable of being formed. In the alternative, any purported contract would have been frustrated by Starbucks’ delays, which were entirely outside the Defendant’s control. As such, no liability can arise.

Umkomaas

Reason: No Valid Pay And Display/permit Was Purchased.

What was the 'contravention' shown on the original Notice to Keeper?  I bet it wasn't that!

You do know how this will end for you?  ECP (and DCB Legal) are mentioned in this thread more than almost all other PPCs in total. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1 

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 08/10/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 13/10/25 and before 27/10/25 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 10/11/25

apexd123

Umkomaas said:

Reason: No Valid Pay And Display/permit Was Purchased.

What was the 'contravention' shown on the original Notice to Keeper?  I bet it wasn't that!

You do know how this will end for you?  ECP (and DCB Legal) are mentioned in this thread more than almost all other PPCs in total. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1 

I'm really unsure what the original paperwork said as i cant seem to find the original NtK. I have all the other paperwork though. Is there anyways I can find this out now?

I really dont have a clue how this will end, its my first experiance with this. I usually submit and pay parking fines for hassle vs peace. But i have no intention of backing down this time. 
Thanks for the links, i feel you are suggesting ecp/dbl will back off before anything goes ahead into actual court?...lets see, fingers crossed

Le_Kirk said:

With an issue date of 08/10/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 13/10/25 and before 27/10/25 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 10/11/25

Ty, my math got me to the same

apexd123

any insight on my section 2 and 3 guys?

Does it seem substantial enough to carry a defence or is it too weak and i need to reconsider what I'm focusing on here ?

kryten3000

Relax. It's Euro Car Parks and DCB Legal.  Expect them to discontinue before any hearing.

Your defence is OK.  Vehicle was not parked.