DCB legal defence, Eurocarparks - Paragraph 3 check please

thinkingpianokey

Hi - I have received the standard claim form from Europarks via DCB legal, for overstaying in a free car park longer than the maximum time allowed

• This alleged contravention was dated 04/05/2023.
• Claim form issue date was dated 19/03/2026
• AOS submitted on MCOL 30/03/2026

Based on SoftwareMad’s document, I should have 33 calendar days from 19/03 to submit my defence, so submit by 21/04/26?

POC with redacted VRM is pictured below. 

Could you please check my paragraph 3 and advise if this sounds ok? I am aware there is ‘standard paragraph 3 refuting the POC’, denying any contravention, as seen in other recent ECP DCB LEGAL cases - I think the info I found on other similar threads covers this?

I found a similar post from user baggiesingh, whose situation seems similar to my own so I’ve pretty much borrowed that wording, but I removed the sentence ‘The Defendant is not liable and has been provided with no evidence of any breach of clear or prominent terms.’ Can I just check what would constitute 'evidence' provided here that would show any breach of clear or prominent terms to me, the defendant? Just as I may add that back in, but I want to check what they mean by ‘evidence’ first:

Referring to the Particulars of Claim, paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Although the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. 

The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. Given the passage of nearly 3 years and the lack of detail in the inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a full response. Signage was unclear and insufficient. The claimed sum is grossly inflated, no private parking charge can lawfully amount to £160, and no loss or damages were incurred.

Regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 4, research has proved that this Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable. The solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly or negligently misleading the court by citing that law. Because of the age of the claim and the lack of evidence produced by the Claimant the pleaded breach of ‘over free time’ is refuted.

Accordingly, the Claimant is put to strict proof of: 

• the alleged breach; 
• the contractual terms purportedly relied upon 
• the identity of the driver; and 
• full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) if the Claimant seeks to transfer liability to the keeper.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 19/03/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 21/04/26, so you are correct.

Coupon-mad

Remove this because this is wrong for ECP:

"Regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 4, research has proved that this Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable. The solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly or negligently misleading the court by citing that law."

thinkingpianokey

Thanks for confirming date @Le_Kirk, much appreciated.

Ah thank you for that @Coupon-mad, I'll remove that paragraph. Thanks for clarifying as I'm aware it's different depending on which parking company is involved and seems my Google check of ECP and POFA was misinformed. I've put the bullet points into a sentence, am I still ok to note these as I am asking for solid proof on their side of the alleged contravention? Is it also worth me noting that the car park is a free car park?

Referring to the Particulars of Claim, paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Although the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. 

The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. Given the passage of nearly 3 years and the lack of detail in the inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a full response. Signage was unclear and insufficient. The claimed sum is grossly inflated, no private parking charge can lawfully amount to £160, and no loss or damages were incurred.

Regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 4, research has proved that this Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable. The solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly or negligently misleading the court by citing that law. Because of the age of the claim and the lack of evidence produced by the Claimant the pleaded breach of ‘over free time’ is refuted.

The Claimant is put to strict proof of the alleged breach - the contractual terms purportedly relied upon, the identity of the driver and full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) if the Claimant seeks to transfer liability to the keeper.

Coupon-mad

That's all that's needed for your para 3.