Euro Car Parks - Claim Form - Scottish Resident - 2022 event - Concourse Shopping Centre

Straitgate

Hi

I am a total newbie. I have been using AI to help me frame a defence and the AI has told me to come here and ask for your help before I send off my defence to the CCJ people... Am I in the right place and shall I go ahead and just paste my defence in here for you to look at?

Coupon-mad

A county court claim (English courts) even though your address is in Scotland?

Or a Simple Procedure claim?

Nellymoser

ECP Claim form do you mean court claim form OR parking charge notice?

Defence? OR Appeal?

Who are the CCJ people?

Have a read of the NEWBIES announcement thread top of page 1. See advice for people living in Scotland.

Straitgate

"Hi everyone,

I am guessing that everyone is in bed. So I thought I would post my draught defence for you to look at in the morning.

I am a Scottish resident (permanent home is on the Isle of Skye) currently staying in England to care for my elderly father. I am being sued by Euro Car Parks for an alleged overstay in August 2022. I have filed my AOS.

I’m challenging the 'Keeper Liability' because at the material time of the event, I was domiciled in Scotland, meaning PoFA 2012 does not apply. I’ve also noted a total overhaul of signage at the site (Concourse Shopping Centre) since the event.

Could the experts please review my draft below? I'm particularly interested in whether my 'no recollection' stance and the 'Scottish resident' angle are tight enough. Filing on Monday. Thanks!

Claim Number: [Your Claim Number]

Claimant: Euro Car Parks

Defendant: [Your Name]

DEFENCE

The Defendant (D) was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle at the material time. D denies liability for the entirety of the claim.

Jurisdiction and Keeper Liability: The Defendant was, at the material time (26 August 2022), a permanent resident and domiciled in Scotland (Carbost, Isle of Skye). Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)—which provides the only statutory basis for keeper liability in private parking charges—does not apply in Scotland. Accordingly, the Claimant (C) cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.

The Driver's Identity: The Defendant has no recollection of the events on 26 August 2022 and therefore cannot confirm or deny being the driver. No evidence has been provided (or is likely available after over three years) identifying the Defendant personally as the driver, such as clear photographic proof from CCTV/ANPR showing the Defendant entering/exiting the vehicle, or any other corroboration. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver's identity. Absent such proof, no liability attaches to the Defendant.

Vagueness of Claim and Breach of CPR 16.4: C’s Particulars of Claim fail to provide arrival/departure times or a specific location. D requires this information to mount an effective defence. D avers that no contract was entered into with C, by conduct or otherwise. D is a law-abiding citizen; had a clear contract been presented, its terms would have been followed.

Strict Proof of Signage: The Claimant is put to strict proof of the exact location, content, and prominence of all signage as it existed on 26 August 2022. D requires C to provide a contemporaneous site plan and dated photographs from that period. D observes that the signage has undergone a total overhaul since 2023 (moving from blue/white to green), which suggests that the 2022 signage was insufficient and did not meet the "prominence" requirements of the IPC Code of Practice or the "binding" standards set out in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015].

Deceptive "CCTV" Warning and Ambiguity: D observes that the primary signage adjacent to the disabled bays in 2022 consisted of generic "CCTV in Operation" warnings. A reasonable person would interpret this as a security measure for crime prevention and public safety, not as a notification of a private parking contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any signage in these specific bays in August 2022 clearly and prominently communicated contractual terms regarding ANPR-enforced time limits.

Abuse of Process: C has added an arbitrary £70.00 "damages" fee to the original charge. This constitutes "double recovery" and is an abuse of the court process, as identified in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] and reinforced by the government's stance on debt collection fees in the Private Parking Code of Practice.

I believe 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: [Your Name]

Date: 31/01/2026

Straitgate

Good morning,

Thank you for responding coupon mad and Nellymoser.

In 2022 I only came to visit my father in England. But now I'm staying at his house. ECP have made a claim through the civil national business center. I presumed these are the CCJ people… I am the defendant and being asked if I intend to defend all this claim... Which I do.

There is a Particulars of Claim section on the claim form. Would you like me to post that to you? ECP have two sections in this particulars of claim. One is saying that they are pursuing me as the driver of the vehicle and the other is saying…"in the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012 schedule 4"

Because I was then domiciled at my house in Scotland the POFA 2012 schedule 4 is a law that cannot be applied to me. That is my understanding.

I've been to visit recently and taken photos and videos and there have been changes in signs. So I cannot defend myself properly unless ECP prove What things look like back then and prove just how I am supposed to have entered into a contact with them.

I have until Monday 4:00 p.m. before this documentation is returned to CNBC…I am not using there online system because I found it problematic... So I'm using email.

I have written a draught of my defence in the post above…can you tell me in your opinion if it's sufficient or if you have any suggestions…I am a complete novice and learning as I'm going along... I only have until Monday. Thanks guys.

Straitgate

Castle

Which country is this shopping centre in?

Straitgate

Hi castle,

The concourse is in England

Gr1pr

Bare facts going forward

So a Scottish resident, presumably the V5c is Registered to the Scottish address, but the incident occurred at a location in England and the keeper is currently staying in England

A Money Claim N1SDT pack was issued to the RK by ECP via DCB Legal, posted by the CNBC in Northampton

What is the issue date from the top right of the claim form ?

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

Post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first

Edit your defence and change or remove the air quotes and any arrows, so the following characters " " < >

Nellymoser

I maybe wrong but I thought defendants had to be sued in the part of the UK where they reside.

EDIT - You lived in Isle of Skye Scotland at the time of the alleged incident maybe now your resident in England is reason claim was filed in England.

ChirpyChicken

Where was the claim form issued?

An English or welsh address?

Straitgate

Their date of issue is 30th of December 25

AOS was sent by email on Sunday 18th January at 23:59

20260124_065950~2.jpg

I'm sorry I didn't erase the registration very professionally.

BelowBelow is and edit of my defence with the brackets take out

Claim Number:

Claimant: Euro Car Parks

Defendant:

DEFENCE

The Defendant (D) was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle at the material time. D denies liability for the entirety of the claim.

Jurisdiction and Keeper Liability: The Defendant was, at the material time (26 August 2022), a permanent resident and domiciled in Scotland (Carbost, Isle of Skye). Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)—which provides the only statutory basis for keeper liability in private parking charges—does not apply in Scotland. Accordingly, the Claimant (C) cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.

The Driver's Identity: The Defendant has no recollection of the events on 26 August 2022 and therefore cannot confirm or deny being the driver. No evidence has been provided (or is likely available after over three years) identifying the Defendant personally as the driver, such as clear photographic proof from CCTV/ANPR showing the Defendant entering/exiting the vehicle, or any other corroboration. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver's identity. Absent such proof, no liability attaches to the Defendant.

Vagueness of Claim and Breach of CPR 16.4: C’s Particulars of Claim fail to provide arrival/departure times or a specific location. D requires this information to mount an effective defence. D avers that no contract was entered into with C, by conduct or otherwise. D is a law-abiding citizen; had a clear contract been presented, its terms would have been followed.

Strict Proof of Signage: The Claimant is put to strict proof of the exact location, content, and prominence of all signage as it existed on 26 August 2022. D requires C to provide a contemporaneous site plan and dated photographs from that period. D observes that the signage has undergone a total overhaul since 2023 (moving from blue/white to green), which suggests that the 2022 signage was insufficient and did not meet the prominence requirements of the IPC Code of Practice or the binding standards set out in ParkingEye v Beavis 2015.

Deceptive CCTV Warning and Ambiguity: D observes that the primary signage adjacent to the disabled bays in 2022 consisted of generic CCTV in Operation warnings. A reasonable person would interpret this as a security measure for crime prevention and public safety, not as a notification of a private parking contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any signage in these specific bays in August 2022 clearly and prominently communicated contractual terms regarding ANPR-enforced time limits.

Abuse of Process: C has added an arbitrary £70.00 damages fee to the original charge. This constitutes double recovery and is an abuse of the court process, as identified in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis 2015 and reinforced by the government's stance on debt collection fees in the Private Parking Code of Practice.

I believe 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: 31/01/2026