Responding to court docs - hopefully an interesting case for you all

threeheadedboy

Hi all,

I've read the NEWBIES thread and have filed an Acknowledgment of Service, defending the whole claim.

I'd be grateful for any guidance before I submit my defence - I couldn't find any previous threads with the same circumstances as me.

Background

The claim is from ParkingEye t/a Car Parking Partnership, represented by DCB Legal.

Claim amount: £319.28 (£234.28 claim, £35 court fee, £50 legal representative's fee).

What happened

This is not a "didn't pay" case, I paid the £1 parking tariff and still have the receipt.

The car park uses ANPR. When paying, I entered the first part of my registration number. The machine failed to find my vehicle and displayed an option along the lines of "vehicle not shown".

I selected that option.

The machine then proceeded directly to the payment screen and accepted payment. It did not provide any facility to enter the remaining characters of the registration number.

The receipt issued by the machine shows:

Vehicle Reg: 'XXXX' (The first four digits of my reg, which I've redacted here)

Evidence

I have:

• Original payment receipt showing payment of £1.
• Photograph of the machine screen showing it already at the payment stage with only "XXXX" displayed.

• POPLA decision.
• Correspondence with DCB Legal.

POPLA

I lost at POPLA.

The POPLA assessor accepted:

• payment was made;
• the operator treated it as a keying error case;
• the operator offered the BPA Code of Practice £20 settlement at the time.

However, POPLA said I "should have entered" the full registration number before selecting "vehicle not displayed".

My difficulty with that finding is that the machine never provided a screen allowing me to enter anything further once I selected that option.

The operator seems to argue that because only "XXXX" was recorded, I breached the terms and conditions despite having paid.

Pre-action correspondence

I wrote to DCB Legal asking them to explain:

• how I was supposed to enter the remaining characters;
• provide signage;
• provide ANPR/payment records;
• explain how the claimed sums were calculated.

I received no substantive response before proceedings were issued.

Draft defence points

My current thinking is:

1. Parking was paid for in full.
2. The machine accepted payment and issued a receipt.
3. The machine recorded "XXXX".
4. There was no facility to enter additional characters once "vehicle not displayed" was selected.
5. Any mismatch arose from the claimant's own system design.
6. The claimant suffered no parking tariff loss.
7. The additional sums are disputed.

Does that seem like the right approach?

In particular, has anyone dealt with a CPP/ParkingEye case involving a machine that accepted a partial VRM after selecting "vehicle not displayed"?

Many thanks.

Gr1pr

Machine faults are extremely common, so look at typical ECP ones and study the recent CMA open letter to all private parking companies

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

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

threeheadedboy

Thanks Gr1pr.

Issue Date: 7 September 2026

Particulars of Claim:

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge (PC) issued to vehicle [VRM REDACTED] at Heads Lane, Carlisle.
2. The date of contravention is 14/03/2022 and the D was issued with a PC 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 The Displayed T&Cs.
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170.00 being the total of the PC and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.01 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees.

Claim total: £319.28.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 07/09/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 26/09/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 12/10/26

Use the template defence where the breach is not pleaded using the link to the Chan & Akande defence.

yarpsnehpets

Was the driver identified at any of the appeal stages or in any of your letters?

Or, did you make these representations purely as the keeper?

threeheadedboy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82136270#Comment_82136270

Thank you, I'll look up Chan & Akande defence template!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82136275#Comment_82136275

I didn't think to make a distinction between the two at the time, so I have said I was the one who parked the car. The fine just seemed so egregious I assumed it would be dismissed straight away - wishful thinking!

Gr1pr

Its definitely not a fine, magistrates issue fines

Its a pcn invoice from a private parking company claimant, at civil court level, not criminal court, so never refer to it as a fine in any court correspondence, because judges don't like the incorrect use of legal terms

As mentioned above, use the Chan and Akande defence template

Dcb legal will discontinue just before the hearing fee is due, in a few months time, or possibly next year

Umkomaas

Defend this as per advice here (NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, post number TWO and Template Defence Announcement) and you can be pretty sure that this claim will follow the steps in this thread.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations

threeheadedboy

I've filed the AOS. I'm now adapting the current MSE defence template using the Chan/Akande wording. Given my facts (paid tariff, receipt showing XXXX, machine photo showing payment screen after 'vehicle not displayed'), should I include those facts in the defence itself, or reserve the detailed explanation for the witness statement stage?

Umkomaas

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82136311#Comment_82136311

All evidence should be contained in the WS, not the Defence.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82136311#Comment_82136311

You could add as a 3.1.

3.1. The Claimant is already aware from the Defendant's appeal that full payment was made but their own system malfunctioned (the Defendant has photo evidence). The Defendant hereby reminds the Claimant of the Competition and Markets Authority's July 2026 Open Letter to this rogue sector, reminding them of the applicable consumer protection laws and their duty of fairness and open dealing. Another large BPA operator is currently being investigated for unfair conduct, specifically including turning down valid appeals, so the Defendant has now sent their evidence to the CMA to invite them to open an investigation into ParkingEye on the same basis.