CCJ Claim form Euro car parks

Fellyboy

Hi, I am sorry if you have heard all of this before. I am just feeling stessed by a claim for a parking ticket. I have just acknowledged online I have recieved it on CNBC and hope to defend it.

The keeper is trying to plan further steps but in truth has no idea what to do or how to approach it or even if it is worth doing so.

On 30/05/2025 the driver overstayed a 30 minute limit by 10 minutes.

The registered keeper's then partner on appeal explained to euro car parks that the keepers long documented mental health issues impacts all aspects of their life and to please cancel the ticket and don't send threatening letters to the house address. The appeal also asked if any more details could be shared about the details of the driver. The appeal also mentioned how it was difficult to transfer the ownership of the ticket to another driver. Keeper ownership of the ticket has not been acknowleded.

The appeal was rejected and threatening letters have followed. No alternative adjustments have been offered in terms of communication, just standard debt collecter communication.

The keeper will go weeks without leaving the house or working/ communicating. Is very easily overwhelmed. Has a very low paying flexible hours job that caters to this and has suicidal thoughts regularly.

Not an excuse for ignoring communication I know and it is stupid and frustrating. It is embarrasing to admit but medical records via app show long term active serious mental health disorders.

There was also only a written option (no online option) to transfer the liability. After the initial appeal it was over the 28 days allowed to change the drivers name.

Since then no communication between the keeper or anyone else has taken place with euro car parks or the DCB debt company (stupidly).

This week a court action was sent to the address after a few other letters have been sent previously.

Acknowledement of service with the intent to defend all of this claim has been filed online yesterday.

Sorry for being vague, unsure how much detail can be added. Im not very good at this sort of thing. Any response will be much appreciated.

Gr1pr

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below

Post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first

Adapt the 10 paragraph template defence by coupon mad in announcements at the top of the forum

Post your proposed paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 below for critique

Fellyboy

Thank you for your response. I will try to look at the other things you mentioned

Gr1pr

Standard stuff above

Follow the advice i gave you earlier, same as the hundreds of other recent similar cases on here

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 10/06/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 13/07/26

Fellyboy

Thank you for your help. With the help of AI I have this response.

I have tried finding the exact paragraphs that you mentioned above. Im not going to lie this website is confusing as a complete newbie to try to find the exact templates for me, a lot of information but unsure how relevant it is to my case. I will try again later.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [insert claim number]
Between:
Euro Car Parks Limited
Claimant
-and-
[Your Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any sum from the Defendant or at all.
The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for an alleged breach of terms on signage.

The Defendant has never admitted being the driver and puts the Claimant to strict proof that the Defendant was the driver.

If the Claimant is instead relying on keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant is put to strict proof that they have complied with all statutory requirements, including giving the Defendant the correct notice and time period.

The alleged event occurred in a free car park at a petrol station, with a stated maximum stay of 30 minutes. The vehicle allegedly overstayed by around 10 minutes.

The Defendant denies that this short overstay justifies the disproportionate amount claimed and puts the Claimant to proof of their entitlement to the sum.

The Defendant also relies on the fact that they have disabilities within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, which substantially affect their day-to-day activities.

The Defendant required reasonable adjustments in how communications were handled due to their condition.

However, the Claimant proceeded with standard debt recovery and court action without considering the Defendant’s needs or providing reasonable adjustments despite being made aware of this at the appeal.

The Defendant denies that the additional costs claimed (£50 legal costs) are recoverable, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of their entitlement to these sums.

In all the circumstances, the Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Signed:
[Your Name]
Date:
[Insert Date]

Gr1pr

Dont use AI, not at all, plus it got the current statement of truth totally wrong

The defence template thread and newbies sticky thread are stuck in the 6 announcements at the top of this forum, so easily found, see the screenshot below

Fellyboy

Thank you, No Ai it is.

I had bookmarked that template discussion, but missed the actual template part as it is in comments section. I kept scrolling through the pages.

Have found it now though I think.

Gr1pr

Its in the 2nd post in that thread, so only study the first 2 posts, ignore the rest of the spurious unwanted replies

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82044024#Comment_82044024

No it isn't. It's clearly the Template Defence, in the thread of the same name.

"After the initial appeal it was over the 28 days allowed to change the drivers name."

There's no 28 day deadline in law. They lied.

Fellyboy

I have had a go at editing the draft response you recommended, I have added to paragraph 3 and added a new paragraph 4.

Please see below and advise if possible.

Thankyou in advance.

Response:

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.

3.  The Defendant has seen not seen any 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. The Defendant has little recollection of the events on the date in question due to the limited information provided within the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim. The Defendant makes no admission as to the identity of the driver. The Claimant has failed to provide sufficient details to establish the precise circumstances of the alleged contravention, including the specific duration of the vehicle’s stay within the car park. In the absence of such information, the Defendant can only refer to potential circumstances. The Defendant has seen no evidence that any such reduced limit, if applicable, was clearly and prominently displayed so as to adequately bring it to the attention of motorists. These matters are raised purely as potential circumstances and do not constitute any admission of liability.

4. The alleged event occurred in a free car park at a petrol station, with a stated maximum stay of 30 minutes. The vehicle allegedly overstayed by around 10 minutes. The Defendant denies that this short overstay justifies the disproportionate amount claimed and puts the Claimant to proof of their entitlement to the sum. The Defendant also relies on the fact that they have disabilities within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, which substantially affect their day-to-day activities. The Defendant required reasonable adjustments in how communications were handled due to their condition. However, the Claimant proceeded with standard debt recovery and court action without considering the Defendant’s needs or providing reasonable adjustments despite being made aware of this at the appeal.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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'.

10. 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.

11. 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))'.