Euro Car Parks Claim

ismailahmed

I need to put a defence in against a claim made towards me by DCB Legal LTD on behalf of Euro Car Parks for 3 parking charges bundled up into one between 20/01/24 - 29/10/24, for the following reason:

The defendant is pursued as the driver of this vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: No Valid Payment-Permit Was Purchased.

What reason/s should I use in my defence, is it worth mentioning either Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) or Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30)? or are they not suitable due to the fact that in both those cases they were fighting against a claim that did not set out the conduct which amounted to a breach?

Where as my claimant has specifically said...Reason: No Valid Payment-Permit Was Purchased.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, and yes I have done the AoS, now onto the defence part.

Coupon-mad

Just use the Template Defence, like the poster I just replied to who has done that tonight.

ismailahmed

So mention Chan's and Akande's case etc?...

Gr1pr

ismailahmed said:

So mention Chan's and Akande's case etc?...

I doubt it,  seeing as it's ECP, so is the actual alleged breach mentioned  ? It was in your post above 

ismailahmed

Gr1pr said:

ismailahmed said:

So mention Chan's and Akande's case etc?...

I doubt it,  seeing as it's ECP, so is the actual alleged breach mentioned  ? It was in your post above 

Yes - here it is:

Where as my claimant has specifically said...Reason: No Valid Payment-Permit Was Purchased.

Coupon-mad

ismailahmed said:

So mention Chan's and Akande's case etc?...

No, of course not. Completely irrelevant for you. I signposted you to read the one I replied to immediately before my reply to you above.

ismailahmed

Coupon-mad said:

ismailahmed said:

So mention Chan's and Akande's case etc?...

No, of course not. Completely irrelevant for you. I signposted you to read the one I replied to immediately before my reply to you above.

Is it this comment from CLAW78 you're referring to?

Just looking through some examples and came across one from Micky2022 a few days ago, which included some great content.  So was thinking of amending (if it will fit in MCOL).  Namely I haven't been provided with evidence of the breach of terms, only photo evidence of the car entering, parking up and leaving - no copies of the signs with the Ts&Cs.

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.  There was insufficient signage at the car park to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. The notice to keeper states "parking in a reserved bay without a valid permit or authority", but there is a lack of clear signage that reserved bays require a permit to park in them beyond purchasing and displaying a ticket (which was done). The signs are sparsely placed and positioned such that they are hidden behind parked vehicles, particularly with the incline of the land on which the car park is situated. Most signs also set out parking tariffs only and make no mention of any specific restrictions. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner if the person parking cannot see the signs. The claimed sum is grossly inflated, as no private parking charge can lawfully amount to £160, and no loss or damages were incurred.

So just so im clear, claim it haven't been provided with any evidence of a breach of clear or prominent signage? And that there was insufficient signage?

Coupon-mad

Either is good - and DCB Legal will discontinue the claim next year anyway, as always - but your sum of money is £170 not £160.