DCB Legal / Euro Car Parks / Court Action

LittleBear74

A big hello to everyone! :-)

I'm new to all of this and have read a lot of information in the forums, but could do with a quick bit of help or link to the current information relating to this.

I am supporting someone with a mental health condition fight a parking charge from 19/11/2024 that has now gone to court via DCB Legal.

They are claiming £182.36 for the parking charge (which I think contains some interest)
Court Fee £35.00
Legal Representatives costs £50.00

Total £267.36

This was in a local Lidl car park, and he said he stayed for 1hr 13minutes (13 minutes over the the 1hour free parking). He went shopping but had a mental health crisis which meant it took a little longer than usual.

The parking fees seem horrendous for 13minutes, but I don't know if they can justify this excessive charge?

I have read through the forums extensively and am confused as to what to use as a current defence document.

The Issue date of the court claim was 23rd October 2025, I helped him to sign up for MCOL following advice from this forum and submitted an AOC on 04/11/2025 which I think gives us until the 25th November to submit the defence. I found the following defence online and was going to send this, but not sure if it is out of date and I'm trying not to mess this up for him. I appreciate there are lots of post's with similar concerns, but I feel like I'm going round in circles trying to find the right defence document. So if there is a link to what is current or any advice I'd be grateful. Thank you in advance for any help, it's causing a lot of stress sadly :-(

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Euro Car Parks Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant

---

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:

(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;

(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;

(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).

(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.

5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:


Date:

Gr1pr

The latest 10 paragraph defence is near the top of the forum in announcements,  read the first 2 posts 

But

I suggest that you or they adapt the following defence 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6640055/claim-form-nov-2025-smart-parking-via-dcb-legal#latest

The ECP pcn was £100, or less, hasn't changed in over 13 years, most of it upheld at the Supreme Court a decade ago,  so as it never changes, it's a pointless exercise using it as a defence point,  hasn't featured for many years 

Stick to the variations on the 11 paragraph defence I linked, with the better arguments 

LittleBear74

Thank you so much Gr1pr for that super quick response! It was really helpful. From what I can see I need to amend paragraph 3 only, which I have done at the bottom of this post. If this is all good its just a case of copying and pasting into the defence section on MCOL? I've just had a go and it all seems to fit with 11 lines left

3. Referring to the Particulars of Claim, paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Although the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has been provided with no evidence of any breach of clear or prominent terms. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. Any stay at MFG Desford Crossroads was either within the allowed time to complete shopping at the supermarket the car park serves or covered by a reasonable extension, including mandatory grace periods under the relevant Code of Practice. Given the passage of more than a year and the lack of detail in the inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a full response. Signage at the material time may also have been unclear or insufficient. The claimed sum is grossly inflated, as no private parking charge can lawfully amount to £182.36, and no loss or damages were incurred.

Gr1pr

£170, not the figure you mentioned 

Otherwise it looks ok to me 

LittleBear74

Awesome, thank you so much for your time and for responding. You have been a great help! I'll fill the defence out now and see what happens :-) Feel like a big weight lifted already!

Coupon-mad

LittleBear74 said:

Awesome, thank you so much for your time and for responding. You have been a great help! I'll fill the defence out now and see what happens :-) Feel like a big weight lifted already!

But you should not be copying para 4 from a Smart Parking defence. It's not relevant to talk about the POFA in an ECP case.

You just need 10 paragraphs and you follow the 8 easy steps in the Template Defence thread.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 23/10/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 25/11/25