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

Straitgate

The claim has been sent to my dad's address in England where I am now staying until he dies. In 2022 I was in Scotland. The logbook for the car had my Isle of Skye address. I have been living since October 25 with my father to look after him. The forms from the CNBC were sent to my father's address in England. Because I was domiciled in Scotland at the time when they alleged I was on their car park…They cannot use POFA 2012 schedule 4 laws to pursue me because they only apply in England... If I had been domiciled in England at the time they could have pursued me using that law but my understanding is that they cannot now do that.

ChirpyChicken

No they have served the claim correctly

Stick with the template defence remove anything else

Straitgate

I thought I better bring the amount of the claim to your attention.

Below is a section from the defence headed Abuse of Process which was written by the Al about charges. I think the AI may have got this wrong. Because it doesn't mention the court fees of £35 and legal representatives costs £50. The amount claimed is £217.72

AI mentions £70 damages but they are actually trying to claim a total of £302.72

Do you think this should be changed?

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.

ChirpyChicken

Again you are producing a load of completely irrelevant material

Use the template defence and move on.

No one is going to waste their time with that

Straitgate

I'm sorry chirpy chicken I don't understand what you are saying.

I don't know What you mean by template defence.

And I don't know What I am writing that is irrelevant

Are you saying that ECP are allowed to pursue me as the owner of the vehicle?

Gr1pr

Nothing to do with ownership , stick to the basics

Look at the top thread in this forum, above your thread, in announcements

Use the template defence by coupon mad in post 2

Adapt paragraph 3 only

Coupon-mad

What you've missed so far, is reading two Announcement threads at the top of the forum:

NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST (read post 2 of it)

then the Template Defence thread.

We won't link them. See my signature.

doubledotcom

It's ECP and DCB Legal will be handling it. Stop fretting. As long as it is defended, no matter how bad, they will discontinue just before they have to pay the £27 trial fee.

Direct the OP to the DCB Legal discontinuations thread for reference:

What is not clear from all the waffle is why the claim was issued to the English address if the vehicle was registered to the Scottish address. There must have been some FUBAR intervention at some stage.

ChirpyChicken

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81863660#Comment_81863660

most likely the actions of the OP , or a trace done

Straitgate

Coupon mad...I have now integrated the official Template paragraphs. Is this better?

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the Defendant was in breach of any term or condition and it is denied that any sum was due.

2. The Defendant was, at the material time (26 August 2022), a permanent resident of and domiciled in Scotland (Carbost, Isle of Skye). Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) does not apply in Scotland. The Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of PoFA to transfer liability to the Keeper. The Defendant has no recollection of the event three years prior and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver's identity.

3. The signage at the Concourse Shopping Centre has undergone a total overhaul since 2023. At the material time, signage was inadequate, lacked prominence, and failed to meet the IPC Code of Practice. Generic 'CCTV' signs were misleadingly placed, implying security rather than a parking contract. The entrance to the McDonald's area was devoid of signage in 2022.

4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) are embarrassing and fail to comply with CPR 16.4. The C has failed to specify the arrival/departure times or the exact location within the site.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices and to pursue such charges in its own name.