bay sentry / dcb legal claim

Gr1pr

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82139518#Comment_82139518

If its in that court order, you definitely do

If its not, you are not ordered to do so

I can only see what you see, we cannot read between the lines

All I can say is that you must definitely comply with court directions as a defendant in any court claim. ( and the claimant must do so as claimant. )

cherryshaker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82139527#Comment_82139527

thanks - there’s nothing for me in the court order. My question is do I have to reply to the email from the claimant?

Gr1pr

Depends on what is in that response pack I suppose, because you have seen it but not shared it

Le_Kirk

You have received amended particulars of claim and, as @Gr1pr pointed out it is normal for a defendant to submit an amended defence (if it suits you) and if it stated such on the order.

cherryshaker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82139626#Comment_82139626

please see below

Coupon-mad

Irrelevant paperwork they've included to confuse you.

You've read the Order now and - unless there was a page 2 you didn't show us - you know the judge didn't require you to do anything.

You also know the claim will be discontinued, and when. We told you that too!

Sit tight.

cherryshaker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82142489#Comment_82142489

thank you

I just checked and there was a third page after a mostly blank second one. Looks like I will have to file a defence. Thankfully I still have until next Friday to file this phew

Gr1pr

Which is what I thought earlier ( so always study all paperwork. ) , as mentioned by Le_Kirk too

Edit your already submitted defence, striking out anything unwanted in red ink, plus adding anything new in red ink

Save your final replacement defence as a pdf and email it to the court and also to the lawyers, before that deadline

Coupon-mad

I must be psychic and I'll take that as a good catch. How did you miss reading that?!

Anyway show us your new amended defence responding to the new POC, but still based mainly on the Template Defence.

😁

cherryshaker

Thank you so much!!

amended defence as below, can I just put it in a n email or does it have to be pdf ?

AMENDED DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all. Save where expressly admitted, each allegation in the Amended Particulars of Claim (“APOC”) is denied.

Preliminary matters

1. The APOC are substantially more particularised than the original Particulars of Claim. However, the Claimant's amended case now expressly abandons any reliance upon keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and instead asserts that the Defendant was the driver.
2. Accordingly, the Claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the Defendant was the driver of the Vehicle on 06/07/2025. The Defendant was the registered keeper but was not the driver. The Defendant does not admit the identity of the driver and puts the Claimant to strict proof.
3. The Claimant's assertion at paragraph 14 of the APOC that it “reasonably believes” the Defendant was the driver does not establish that fact. The suggestion that, if the Defendant were not the driver, they “would have nominated” the driver is speculative and does not reverse the burden of proof. There is no legal presumption that the registered keeper was the driver merely because the keeper has not nominated another person.
4. The Claimant expressly states at paragraph 15 of the APOC that it does not intend to rely upon POFA. The Claimant therefore cannot rely upon the statutory mechanism by which a creditor may, subject to strict statutory conditions, recover an unpaid parking charge from a keeper. POFA Schedule 4 provides a specific statutory route to keeper liability and limits the amount recoverable from a keeper by virtue of that statutory right.
5. The Defendant accordingly denies liability in their capacity as registered keeper and denies that the Claimant has established any contractual or other basis upon which the Defendant personally became liable.

The alleged contract

1. It is admitted only that the Vehicle was recorded entering and leaving the Land at the times alleged. The ANPR evidence does not identify the driver.
2. The Claimant relies upon an alleged contract formed between the Claimant and the driver. The Defendant was not the driver and therefore did not accept any such contractual terms by conduct.
3. Further and in the alternative, if the Court finds that the Defendant was the driver, which is denied, the Claimant must prove the precise terms of the alleged contract applicable on 06/07/2025.
4. The Claimant relies upon various descriptions of signage at paragraph 5 of the APOC, including:

a. “1½ hours max stay / FREE parking / No return within 2 hours”;

b. “1½ hours maximum stay”;

c. “1 hour 30 minutes maximum stay for customers only. No return within 2 hours”; and

d. “Exceeding 1½ hours or returning within 2 hours may result in a £100 parking charge”.

1. The Defendant does not admit that the wording, layout, size, positioning, illumination, prominence or visibility of those signs was as alleged on the material date.
2. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the actual signage in place on 06/07/2025, including contemporaneous photographs, the location and positioning of every material sign, the height and size of the lettering, and the route by which a motorist entering the Land would encounter and read the terms.
3. The Defendant's position remains that the signage was insufficiently prominent and/or inadequately positioned to give fair notice of the contractual terms and the £100 charge before any contract could reasonably be said to have been accepted.
4. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that the £100 charge was sufficiently brought to the attention of the driver before the alleged contract was formed.
5. The Supreme Court's decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not establish that every private parking charge is automatically enforceable. In Beavis, the Supreme Court considered the particular signage and contractual circumstances of that case. The Court's reasoning depended materially upon the charge being prominently and clearly communicated to motorists.
6. The Defendant relies upon the absence of adequate notice and puts the Claimant to strict proof that the circumstances here satisfy the principles relied upon by the Claimant.

ANPR evidence and alleged overstay

1. Paragraph 8 of the APOC alleges that the Vehicle entered the Land at 13:00:56 and exited at 14:52:57, a total ANPR period of 1 hour, 52 minutes and 1 second.
2. The Defendant does not admit that ANPR entry-to-exit time is synonymous with contractual “parking time”.
3. The Claimant itself pleads that a 10-minute consideration period and a 10-minute grace period were applied. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof of precisely how those periods were calculated and applied in this case.
4. In particular, the Claimant must explain:

a. the precise commencement of any contractual parking period;

b. the consideration period applied before the driver became bound by the terms;

c. the grace period applied after expiry of the permitted parking period;

d. whether any period spent entering, finding a space, reading signs, manoeuvring, loading/unloading or leaving was included in the alleged overstay; and

e. the precise calculation by which the Claimant says a contractual breach occurred.

1. The Claimant is further put to strict proof of the applicable version of the relevant industry Code and its compliance with the mandatory minimum consideration and grace periods applicable to this site and this parking event.
2. The Defendant does not accept that merely recording a vehicle between two ANPR cameras establishes that the vehicle was continuously parked for the whole period alleged.

Mechanical defect / inability to leave

1. On the material date the Vehicle suffered an unforeseen mechanical defect which rendered it temporarily immobile and prevented it from being removed from the Land within the stated free parking period.
2. The overstay was therefore not a deliberate attempt to disregard the parking terms. Reasonable steps were taken to address the mechanical problem and to remove the Vehicle as soon as reasonably practicable.
3. The Defendant relies upon the circumstances surrounding the mechanical defect and will rely upon available documentary and/or witness evidence in support.
4. The Defendant further avers that the Claimant has not identified any sufficiently clear contractual term dealing with a vehicle which becomes immobilised through an unforeseen mechanical defect.
5. In circumstances where the alleged overstay resulted from an unforeseen mechanical failure rather than a deliberate decision to remain parked beyond the permitted period, the Claimant is put to strict proof that the alleged £100 charge is nevertheless contractually payable.
6. If the Claimant relies upon a contractual term said to impose liability notwithstanding mechanical failure, that term must be identified and its wording, prominence and incorporation proved.

Consumer Rights Act 2015

1. Further and in the alternative, if a contract existed between the driver and the Claimant, the Defendant relies upon sections 62 and 64 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA 2015”).
2. Section 62 provides that an unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer. Section 64 provides that a term cannot be excluded from fairness assessment merely because it concerns the main subject matter or price unless it is transparent and prominent.
3. The Defendant will contend that any term purporting to impose an additional £70 “contractual cost” is neither sufficiently transparent nor prominent, and that the wording relied upon by the Claimant does not clearly communicate a fixed £70 liability.
4. The Claimant relies upon the wording:

“Failure to make prompt payment may incur additional costs.”

1. That wording does not state that the motorist is contractually liable for a fixed £70 sum. It does not identify £70, nor does it explain how any additional cost is calculated, what event triggers the sum, or whether the amount represents a genuine contractual liability as opposed to costs incurred in pursuing the alleged debt.
2. The Claimant therefore cannot properly characterise the wording as an unequivocal contractual agreement to pay £70.

The £70 “Contractual Costs”

1. The £70 claim is denied in its entirety.
2. Paragraph 19 of the APOC relies upon the vague wording “Failure to make prompt payment may incur additional costs.” The Claimant does not plead that the driver expressly agreed to pay £70.
3. The Claimant has not pleaded the contractual mechanism by which £70 becomes due, nor has it pleaded why the amount is £70 rather than any other amount.
4. The Claimant's own paragraph 16 states that it instructed Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd and subsequently DCB Legal Ltd. The Claimant is put to strict proof of:

a. the identity of the person or entity to whom each alleged cost was paid;

b. the amount actually paid;

c. the date on which it was paid;

d. whether the Claimant has actually incurred the alleged £70;

e. whether any such cost was incurred specifically in relation to this Defendant and this parking charge;

f. whether the alleged £70 is recoverable under the alleged contract; and

g. why the £70 is not simply an attempt to recover debt-recovery or legal costs outside the ordinary costs regime.

1. The Claimant cannot recover the same expenditure twice, once as contractual costs and again through the £50 fixed legal representative costs claimed at paragraph 18.
2. The £70 is not part of the £100 parking charge pleaded at paragraphs 6 and 18. It is a separate sum and therefore requires a separate and properly established contractual or legal basis.
3. The Defendant does not admit that any such contractual term was incorporated into the alleged contract or that it is fair or enforceable.
4. Further, the Claimant's reliance upon a general statement that additional costs “may” be incurred does not establish a contractual entitlement to an arbitrary fixed sum of £70.
5. The Defendant accordingly invites the Court to dismiss the £70 claim.

Claimant's standing and authority

1. Paragraph 4 of the APOC merely states that the Claimant was “instructed” by the Landowner to manage parking.
2. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its standing and authority to:

a. enter into contracts with motorists;

b. impose parking charges in its own name;

c. pursue unpaid parking charges;

d. issue proceedings;

e. recover contractual costs; and

f. litigate in respect of the specific Land and the material date.

1. The Defendant requests that the Claimant produce the contemporaneous landowner agreement and/or other unredacted contractual authority relied upon, together with a site plan identifying the relevant land.
2. A mere assertion that the Claimant was “instructed” by the Landowner is not itself proof of the scope of that authority.

The alleged appeal

1. The Claimant relies upon the Defendant's appeal dated 12/08/2025.
2. The fact that the Defendant, as registered keeper, appealed the charge does not amount to an admission that the Defendant was the driver.
3. Nor does the Defendant's challenge to signage amount to acceptance of contractual liability.
4. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the complete appeal correspondence and the precise context in which the Defendant's statements were made.

Amount claimed and interest

1. The Claimant's pleaded principal sums are inconsistent and/or inadequately particularised.
2. The Claimant identifies the principal “Charge” as €100.00 in paragraph 18, notwithstanding that the alleged parking charge is expressly stated elsewhere to be £100.00.
3. The Defendant therefore requires clarification and strict proof of the currency and precise principal sum allegedly due. A claim arising from parking at Manchester, England, cannot simply plead €100 without explanation.
4. The £70 contractual costs are denied for the reasons set out above.
5. The £6.20 interest is not admitted.
6. The Claimant claims interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984. Such interest is discretionary rather than automatic.
7. The Defendant invites the Court to decline interest, particularly insofar as the Claimant has delayed proceedings and the Defendant has been required to respond to an amended claim.
8. If interest is awarded, the Claimant is put to strict proof of its calculation, including the precise principal sum upon which interest is calculated and the date from which it is said to accrue.

Court fee and fixed costs

1. The Defendant does not dispute that a successful Claimant may ordinarily recover the applicable court fee and any costs properly recoverable under the applicable rules, subject to the Court's determination of liability.
2. The Defendant does, however, deny that the Claimant is entitled to recover sums that are not properly due merely by presenting them as contractual costs.

Conclusion

1. The Claimant has failed to establish that the Defendant was the driver.
2. The Claimant has expressly abandoned reliance upon POFA and therefore cannot establish keeper liability under Schedule 4.
3. The Claimant has failed to establish that the alleged contractual terms were adequately incorporated and brought to the attention of the driver.
4. The Claimant has failed to establish that the alleged ANPR period constitutes a contractual breach, particularly having regard to the pleaded consideration and grace periods.
5. The Claimant has failed to establish any contractual entitlement to the additional £70.
6. The Claimant has failed to establish its standing and authority to recover the sums claimed in its own name.
7. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon the circumstances of the unforeseen mechanical defect and the absence of any clearly incorporated contractual provision dealing with that circumstance.
8. Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety.
9. The Defendant reserves the right to amend this Defence should the Claimant serve further evidence or documents which materially alter the case advanced in the APOC.