DCB Legal Claim Form Defence Help Needed Please

Fullofgrace

Hi, I am hoping to get some help with my claim form defence. I have followed everything I could find on the threads up to this point.

Situation: Parked in a car park whilst using the gym one has used for years and all of a sudden there is a restriction. I was not aware I had to register my car details in the gym as I would just normally get on with my routine. Received 2 PCNs- sent an appeal online- did not get a response only to get a letter from DCB, their typical threat etc. I called an told them I had not had a response- only to be told they sent an email, which I did not receive as I was actively monitoring both inbox and junk mail. I sent a letter to Euro Car Parks by recorded delivery that I did not receive a response neither was I given a chance to appeal via POPLA- no response. I even escalated to the BPA - but they said don't deal with individual parking charges and they will link me with someone at Euro Car Parks- so send my details etc- up to now no respond then I get a Claim Form.

Question: is the defence template in the threads with the 11paragraphs (updated in February) I found still applicable to my case. Which paragraphs am I to keep, amend or remove?

Claim form particulars.jpg

I would really appreciate some guidance. Thanks in advance

Gr1pr

So its ECP via DCB Legal. ? And the issue date is. ?

Use the 10 paragraph template defence in the defence template thread in announcements ( so 10 paragraphs, not 11. )

Adapt paragraph 3 , use all 10

I assume that you have completed the AOS stage online on MCOL already. ?

Fullofgrace

Issue date is 12/03/25 and yes I have completed the AOS stage. Thanks

Fullofgrace

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81952396#Comment_81952396

Thanks again. Yes, it is ECP via DCB legal. This bit confused me:

'The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.'

as I am admitting to being the driver as it also says to 'add and driver if admitting that'

This is my paragraph;

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost 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.

3. The Defendant is a regular user of the gym facilities and has attended in the early morning, mostly before sunrise, for many years. This routine is necessary to allow sufficient time to return home and take responsibility for dropping their children at school. On the date in question, the Defendant attended at a similar early hour, when it was still dark. Due to the time of attendance and low lighting conditions, the Defendant was not aware of any new signage or recently introduced parking restrictions.

The Defendant appealed the charges. But no response or acknowledgement was received from the Claimant. The Claimant has never provided the defendant the opportunity to appeal via the appropriate means. A POPLA verification code or any details explaining how the matter may be escalated to POPLA was not provided. As an Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) member of the British Parking Association, the claimant is required under the BPA Code of Practice to provide motorists with the opportunity to escalate their appeal to POPLA if rejecting an appeal. Furthermore, in an effort to resolve the situation and bring closure having received no form of communication from the claimant following the appeal, a letter was sent formally to the Claimant by letter, sent via Signed for delivery on the xxx of xxx 2025, which was delivered. Despite this, the Claimant provided no response whatsoever. This conduct is wholly unreasonable and appears to be an attempt to pressure payment while deliberately denying access to the independent appeals process. The case was escalated to BPA, who in turn replied that although they did not deal with individual parking charges, will ask the Defendant to make contact with the Claimant, which up to now, there has been no communication. The court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 in this respect. Failure to properly consider the Defendant’s appeal submitted on the Claimant’s platform a well as the letter. Failure to provide the required POPLA verification code and details following the rejection (or deemed rejection) of the appeal. Escalating the matter to debt collection while denying the Defendant access to independent appeal. Operating an online appeals system that restricts the number of characters/wording permitted, preventing motorists from fully explaining their case.

Is it ok?

Gr1pr

2 should be the same as the template defence, with any brief additions at the end or slightly adapted to suit

3 should be concise, brief, no waffle, and refuting the POC from the lower left of the claim form

Save the stories for your future WS in several months time

MCOL only allows 122 lines in total

Each paragraph has its own number

Fullofgrace

Ok thanks, I will give it a go now and shorten. Thanks for your help.

Gr1pr

The POC alleges an overstay

Your defence paragraph 3 should be about proper signage when new restrictions were imposed, plus the hidden keypad arguments , the driver was a valid regular customer of the gym and so allowed to use the car park

Study other paragraph 3 defences over the last 9 months that mention gyms and hidden keypad etc

Fullofgrace

Ok thank you

Coupon-mad

For starters, remove all this (the first bit isn't right for your case because they haven't really delayed the claim):

"The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial."

"This routine is necessary to allow sufficient time to return home and take responsibility for dropping their children at school."

"The Claimant has never provided the defendant the opportunity to appeal via the appropriate means. A POPLA verification code or any details explaining how the matter may be escalated to POPLA was not provided. As an Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) member of the British Parking Association, the claimant is required under the BPA Code of Practice to provide motorists with the opportunity to escalate their appeal to POPLA if rejecting an appeal. Furthermore, in an effort to resolve the situation and bring closure having received no form of communication from the claimant …"

"This conduct is wholly unreasonable and appears to be an attempt to pressure payment while deliberately denying access to the independent appeals process. The case was escalated to BPA, who in turn replied that although they did not deal with individual parking charges, will ask the Defendant to make contact with the Claimant, which up to now, there has been no communication. The court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 in this respect. Failure to properly consider the Defendant’s appeal submitted on the Claimant’s platform a well as the letter. Failure to provide the required POPLA verification code and details following the rejection (or deemed rejection) of the appeal. Escalating the matter to debt collection while denying the Defendant access to independent appeal. Operating an online appeals system that restricts the number of characters/wording permitted, preventing motorists from fully explaining their case."

Fullofgrace

Referring to the POC: The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant and does not accept that a contravention occurred on the alleged date and as such the rest of the particulars of claim are denied. The Defendant is a paying, regular gym user who attends before sunrise due to childcare commitments and has used the gym for many years, with evidence of membership available to submit when required, and as such, was fully entitled to use the car park, and on the alleged date, unaware of any new signage or parking restrictions in the prevailing darkness. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The small signage is not suitably placed to alert a motorist, driving round a bend on entry to car park in the darkness.

The Defendant submitted an appeal which the Claimant ignored, providing no POPLA verification code, contrary to the BPA Code of Practice. A signed-for letter in 2025 was also ignored. The Claimant’s unreasonable conduct has denied the Defendant an independent appeal while continuing enforcement. The Court is invited to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4.

Is this better? Thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes that'll do nicely!