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

Straitgate

Thanks, Gr1pr.

I appreciate the feedback on 3 and 4. I'll take your advice and leave it until Monday morning to see if any final tweaks come in before I submit to MCOL. Have a good evening everyone

Straitgate

ChirpyChicken

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81863967#Comment_81863967

The claim was correctly served so it would have failed in the application

Straitgate

Hi folks I've been burning the midnight oil.

This is the latest draught...(Including the text of the template…But not the final paragraph).

I have tweaked paragraph three a little. And added the word 'surveillance' to the end of paragraph 4.

Do you think it is ready to send?

I believe I have until 4:00 p.m. this afternoon to get it in... And I have only a little experience with MCOL SYSTEM. Which wasn't good. So I'm hoping I don't hit snags.

Thanks for your help

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. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle. At the material time (August 2022), the Defendant was a permanent resident of and domiciled in Scotland. Consequently, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 does not apply and there is no Keeper Liability in this jurisdiction. The Claimant has failed to comply with the statutory requirements to transfer liability to the keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver's identity, which is not admitted.

Furthermore, the signage at the Concourse Shopping Centre has since been entirely overhauled. In 2022 the signage was sparse and lacked the prominence required by the BPA Code of Practice and entrance points were devoid of clear contractual terms. Generic CCTV signs were present which implied security monitoring rather than parking contract surveillance.

4. The Particulars of Claim are sparse and fail to comply with CPR 16.4. The Claimant has failed to specify the arrival and departure times or the exact location within the site. The Claimant is put to strict proof of every element of their claim and is required to provide a contemporaneous site plan and dated photographs of the signage as it existed in August 2022.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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'.

9. 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'.

10. 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.

doubledotcom

It's ECP/DCB Legal. It really doesn't matter what you put in the defence. It could be a nursery rhyme for all they care. As long as a defence, any defence, is submitted, they will discontinue just before the trial fee deadline.

Gr1pr

Seems ok to me, check if it fits into the 122 lines on MCOL, if not, delete the last paragraph

Personally I suggest that you renumber it from furthermore, making it 11 paragraphs in total

Straitgate

GR1PR

Thank you... I will do exactly as you suggested. If I hit any snags I hope you don't mind if I come back to you? But I'm sure I'll work it out. I'll let you know How I get on.

Doubledotcom

I hope You're right... I put a lot of thought and effort into this... I went back there to the car park to see what it was like... It's a total different setup now. It's still a honey trap but the signs now are asking people to scan a QR code and pay If they intend to stay longer. But as you drive in There is still no sign telling you you're going to enter into a contract. All the signs are the same colour and one says public parking in big letters and tells you the nasty stuff in small letters... And it's in a place where you can't stop to read it. Another sign same colour says only taxis can park here... So... Imagine you see these two signs…public parking and taxis only... Then you look at the others from a distance... There's nothing to tell you that it's a contractual car park... It's ridiculous. There should be a big sign. A really big sign in your face…like when you drive under a 8 ft bridge... A huge sign tells and warns you of the terms and conditions! Anyway... I'm going off on one. Sorry makes me so angry...I despise people who make a living by preying on people's ignorance. An old bloke in his 80s across the road from me give £5,000 to scam builders who promised to repair his roof and left him with more of a problem than he started out with. I tried to find out who they were but their vehicle didn't even have a phone number printed on it. ECP are just the same... Only they are more sophisticated. I'm definitely going to write to parliament about them.

Thanks doubledotcom... I don't think anyone else is going to comment so I better get it sent.

Thanks for all your help.

doubledotcom

Just get it submitted. This will never reach a hearing where your points will be argued or dissected. You are going through the motions only.

DCB Legal work on the MO that if you haven't succumbed by the trial fee deadline, you are not low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree. They rely on the low-hanging fruit to be intimidated enough to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

They issue hundreds of thousands of MCOL claims every year. What we see here is just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of those claims are either won by default or the defendant capitulates. If you just follow the advice give here, it will all be over in about 6 months from now when you receive your N279 Notice of Discontinuance. Don't lose any sleep over it.

ChirpyChicken

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81866327#Comment_81866327

This really is spot on

Straitgate

Help! Sorry guys

I just went MCOL and it told me that there is a bar has been put in place and I can't respond at this stage.

Can you tell me what to do? I mean is the deadline still 4pm? How can I know? I trying to phone but I'm 21 in a Q…

Tell me not to panic

ChirpyChicken

You havent emailed a defence have you, i hope that is the reason

If not it can be a sign they have applied for a default judgment, if that is the case you should have just used the template defence and not wasted your time faffing around i am afraid to say