Help with Defence - Claim G24 Ltd/DCB Legal (Vehicle Remained on private property...)

cappy182

Dear Team of Experts,

hope you can help me with this second claim put against me by G24 Ltd. I’ve already posted a thread on this forum regarding a CCJ issued by the same parking company to my old address and hopefully I’ll get this sorted at my local court at the end of this month.

Premise, at the time of the alleged contravention (14/07/2025), me and my partner were valid members of PureGym and were using the gym facilities as intended. Therefore, my vehicle was authorised to be parked on site. However, I was not made aware of any requirement to type my vehicle registration number on their system inside the gym.  According to that, as a gym member, I am entitled to up to 3 hours of free parking at this location. But there were no clear, prominent, or adequately visible signs at the parking area informing members of this requirement.

G24 must’ve sent the PCN and subsequents letters to my old address (as the CCJ of another older PCN). I’ve just received DCB Legal threatening letters at my new address. At this point, I’ve emailed PureGym and trying to get the new PCN cancelled unsuccessfully. I only managed to get the proof of attendance on that specific date of my contravention and found out that I’ve overstayed by 30 mins the 2 hours of free parking allowed on that property. 

My only mistake was not to reply to the final letter before of claim issued by DCB Legal. CNBC issued the claim form on the 13th March 2026 and I’ve submitted the AOS on 20th March. So I need to submit my defence on MCOL by this weekend. 

These are particular of claims

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC) issued to vehicle **** at *** Retail car park.

2. The date of contravention is 14/07/2025 and the D was issued with PC(s) by the Claimant

3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Vehicle Remained on Private property in Breach of Prominently Displayed Terms and Conditions.

4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PC(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.01 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fee

As stated on point 3 of POC, ‘Reason: Vehicle remained on Private Property in Breach of Prominently Displayed Terms and Conditions.’ sounds a little bit too vague as I overstayed the 2 hours of free park on that land, despite I was entitled up to 3 hours as a gym member. Should I add this fact to the number 3 of this template I found from newbies thread and other similar cases? 

Could you review these points for me, before I submit my Defence?

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 14/07/2025, as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

3.1 Due to the length of time, the Defendant has no recollection of the day in question and who was the driver. At the time of the alleged contravention, me and my partner were legitimate member of PureGym and were using the gym facilities as intended. As a gym members, we were entitled o up to 3 hours of free parking at this location. Therefore, my vehicle was authorised to be parked on site. However, I was not made aware of any requirement to register my vehicle registration number. There were no clear, prominent, or adequately visible signs within the gym or at the parking area informing members of this requirement. Because this key condition was not properly displayed, no contract could have been formed on those terms. It is unreasonable to enforce a charge based on conditions that were not clearly communicated to authorised users.

Thanks for all your support

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 13/03/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 15/04/26

Gr1pr

The breach is not pleaded in the POC, so use the Chan and Akande defence template, no changes, no additions

cappy182

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81956087#Comment_81956087

That's what I thought!

At this point shall I mention the fact that I was a gym member at the date of the event? (point number 6 of my Defence below) And what about 11-12? This template I found it's slightly different from that one in the newbies thread by @Coupon-mad. Not sure if there are too many points to submit in the limited space on MCOL

Thanks everybody again for all your expertise.

DEFENCE

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 Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2.       It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. If registration was a condition of free parking, it must have been clearly stated at the point of contract. Without such clarity, no breach arises. The Court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4. The vehicle is recognised, and the Defendant confirms they were the registered keeper.

The facts known to the Defendant:

3.      The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. The Defendant has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

4. With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim’."

5. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 14/07/25, as alleged and neither was a PCN received.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

6. At the time of the alleged contravention, me and my partner were legitimate members of PureGym and were using the gym facilities as intended. Evidences of gym attendance on that date can be provided. If entering a registration at the gym was required, this was not clearly stated. There were no clear, prominent, or adequately visible signs within the gym or at the parking area informing members of this requirement. Because this key condition was not properly displayed, no contract could have been formed on those terms. It is unreasonable to enforce a charge based on conditions that were not clearly communicated to authorised users. 

7. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps mock-up).

8.  In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of the charge itself. None of these requirements have been demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to £135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

9. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents (DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the added sums are not part of the parking related charges: ‘profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits reported 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. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 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)).’’

11.  The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest (the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be disallowed).

12. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): ‘Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg)).’ It is submitted that a definition of unreasonableness encompasses an intention to discontinue that has been present since the start, as may be stipulated in any contractual relationship between the parking company and bulk litigator.

Coupon-mad

I can tell from para 1 that's not the current Template Defence and also because the current version includes two important mentions of HHJ Moloney in Beavis.

Use the Template Defence 'as is' with the (linked twice in that thread) Chan & Akande para 3. No words written by you.

Car1980

yes, you're undermining your complaint about non-compliant particulars by spilling the beans in your paragraph.