PCN Overstay

dosser123 · 6 March at 3:25PM

hello guys,

So I got a PCN from DCB legal (for Euro Car Parks) because I stayed over the stated time. I actually use the gym for the car park and my car broke down (issue with the key) so I couldn't move it until the following day. I actually contacted the owners of the gym but they told me it's a different company I'd have to go through (the landowner) and it just seemed like a load of hassle, so I thought I'd just ignore it. Now I've received a letter from the court stating they wish to pursue me for it.

I've told them I acknowledge receipt and now i'm ready to submit my defence. I've used the template on newbies thread, so I just wnated to make sure I'd done it right. Can you let me know if there's anything wrong with it? I used ChatGPT to help me put it together but realise this could be risky… Any help will be really appreciated:

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'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2 The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

3 The Defendant attended the gym located on the premises on the material date and was a legitimate customer using the car park for its intended purpose. After completing the visit and returning to the vehicle, the Defendant discovered that the vehicle could not be started due to a mechanical fault involving the key/ignition. The vehicle could not be driven or removed from the site and therefore had to remain parked overnight until the issue could be resolved the following day. The Defendant returned the following day and resolved the issue so the vehicle could be removed.

3.1 This was an unforeseen mechanical failure entirely outside the Defendant’s control. The Defendant avers that this situation amounts to frustration of any alleged contract, because the driver was physically prevented from leaving the car park due to a vehicle breakdown. The vehicle was not capable of being driven or removed from the site until the fault was resolved. The Defendant contacted a mechanic at the time and retains contemporaneous message records confirming the issue, which will be relied upon in evidence if required. The alleged contractual obligation to leave within a specified timeframe therefore became impossible to perform. The driver did not intentionally overstay and took reasonable steps to resolve the issue and remove the vehicle as soon as the fault was rectified. Accordingly, any alleged breach was unavoidable and cannot reasonably give rise to a parking charge.

4 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.

5 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).

6 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 Beavis.

7 Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and(ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419–428 that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and would appear to be penal.

8 The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control indicating that there is a market failure.

9 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))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that double recovery is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

10 The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes Claimants liable for costs.