Bank Holiday - Euro Car Parks - DCB Legal

Canvasdesign

26-8-2024 (Bank Holiday Monday) I went to my local gym to find it was closed.  Never even gave it a thought it would be shut on Mondays. I did some work on the car park and answered some emails before I returned home.

I then got a Letter months later saying the timeframe had elapsed for an appeal..  I have never had any Popla letters and it has all been done by email / normal delivery apparently.

Then the debt collectors. in bin as well and then yesterday I got a letter from CNBC. issue date 23-10-2025

I have already filled the Acknowledgment of Service after 5 days and had 2 questions before I submit my defense.

1.  What is the date I need to submit by?  Is it 20th November.

2. For section 3 is the following OK? "3.  The Defendant notes that any signage at the location was unclear or not prominent enough to bring terms to the attention of a driver. The defendant is also dyslexic and Dyspraxic. No detailed evidence of a breach has been provided by the Claimant and correspondence has been zero. "

Should I mention the fact that it was a Bank Holiday or leave it as simple as possible?

Gr1pr

1) your deadline date is 4pm on Tuesday 25th November 

2) save stories for the WS stage next year, your paragraph 3 should address the points made in the POC

I dont think that being a Bank Holiday is of any relevance, the signage formed the alleged contract with the driver 

The original letters went to the address listed on the DVLA database at the time of the event,  so missing paperwork is no defence 

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 23/10/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 28/10/25 and before 11/11/25 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 25/11/25

Canvasdesign

New Section - 3.  Referring to the quantum in the POC: the claimed sum is hugely exaggerated (no PC can be £170 on private land and interest cannot accrue on that inflated total) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. Regarding the pleaded case: Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are also denied. To the Defendant's knowledge, there was no contravention and any purported terms on signs were likely inadequate. The Claimant is to put strict proof of all of their allegations. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.

kryten3000

That'll do - DCB Legal will discontinue pretty much any defended claim for Euro Car Parks.

Canvasdesign

Final Copy that will be submitted on the dates.  I checked and it fits in mcol perfectly

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

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.

3.  Referring to the quantum in the POC: the claimed sum is hugely exaggerated (no PC can be £170 on private land and interest cannot accrue on that inflated total) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. Regarding the pleaded case: Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are also denied. To the Defendant's knowledge, there was no contravention and any purported terms on signs were likely inadequate. The Claimant is to put strict proof of all of their allegations. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Gr1pr

Looks OK to me,  deals with the basics and doesn't discuss the wider case or background