PCN from Euro Car Parks/DCB Legal

dosser123

After almost a yera of harrassment from Euro Car Parks and then DCB Legal, they've filed a court case against me. I'm a member of the gym where the car was parked, and I stayed for 30 mins over the 3-hour limit. I did try to get the gym to squash it but they said it's a different company that deals with it so I never pursued.

Does this defence look adequate?

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 [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the costs of enforcement. 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.
3. The vehicle was parked at premises where the Defendant was a legitimate customer of the on-site gym. The alleged contravention concerns exceeding a purported maximum stay period. The Defendant does not recall seeing any sufficiently prominent signage clearly drawing attention to a strict three-hour limit or the consequences of exceeding it. Any such terms, if present, were not adequately brought to the attention of motorists before parking. The Defendant avers that the signage failed to communicate the alleged contractual terms with sufficient prominence and therefore no clear agreement to those terms was reasonably capable of being formed.
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.
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 obligations. 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 and 198 of Beavis; and
   (ii) ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB), where inflated added costs were held to be penal.
8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents. The Government consultation indicated likely prohibition of added recovery fees, previously described by Ministers as extorting money from motorists.
9. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable. The creditor may not recover more than the amount of the unpaid parking charge itself.
10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs pursuant to CPR 27.14 and a finding of unreasonable conduct.

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name:
XXXXXXXXX

Signature:

Date:

Gr1pr

Definitely Not, even the statement of truth at the bottom was retired 5 years ago, so is completely invalid ( plus you don't need it or your signature when using MCOL )

Use the 10 paragraph template defence in announcements near the top of the forum by coupon mad, adapting paragraph 3 as required to suit your own case, same as dozens of other ECP DCB LEGAL cases on here over the last 9 months

Your paragraph 3 above looks suitable IMHO, so slot it in

Coupon-mad

Even para 1 of the Template has had the MOST IMPORTANT sentence about HHJ Moloney removed! Use the template as is.

dosser123

Okay thanks…. I've copied and pasted the template and just changed par 3… So this is ready to submit?

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 [2015] UKSC 67 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.

3. The vehicle was parked at premises where the Defendant was a legitimate customer of the on-site gym. The alleged contravention concerns exceeding a purported maximum stay period. The Defendant does not recall seeing any sufficiently prominent signage clearly drawing attention to a strict three-hour limit or the consequences of exceeding it. Any such terms, if present, were not adequately brought to the attention of motorists before parking. The Defendant avers that the signage failed to communicate the alleged contractual terms with sufficient prominence and therefore no clear agreement to those terms was reasonably capable of being formed.

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 ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) 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'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

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 (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: '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))'.

Gr1pr

I only checked paragraph 3 but looks OK to me

The rest of the template never needs checking

dosser123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82008287#Comment_82008287

okay cheers. And does it need uploading via MCOL or emailing? I've seen people saying to do both and not the other. Soemthing about MCOl cuttng it off or something like that?

Gr1pr

Uploading. ? NO

Emailing ? NO

( Posting ? No. )

Its designed to fit into the MCOL start defence box, within the 122 lines, so copy and paste, save and submit