Claim Form DCB legal ltd for Euro car parks

SnoopyMiffy30

So I can’t seem to find what post im supposed to be looking at its very hard to find it and confusing can I write this as my denfence

1.The defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question (although was not the driver at the time mentioned).
2. It is admitted that the defendant's vehicle entered the car park on the date in question. However, liability for the amount claimed is denied.

3. More than full payment made / no financial loss: The claimant alleges that “no valid pay and display permit was purchased”. The defendant refutes this. The defendant purchased a 2 hour virtual parking permit at 13.01 on the date in question via the claimant’s designated payment application, RingGo. According to the claimant’s documents sent to the defendant the vehicle entered the car park at 12.00 and left at 12.28. The vehicle way only on site for 28 minutes. The claimant therefore received full remuneration -and indeed an overpayment- for the time spent on site, suffering zero financial loss. The claimant was made aware of this when the defendant responded to their first communication. The defendant has records from the RingGo application showing the date, time, correct location and amount payed which concurs with her bank statement.

4. De Minimis and Consideration Period: The vehicle was on site for a minimal duration of 28 minutes. Under the applicable Parking Code of Practice, operators    must allow a reasonable consideration period. The brief stay combined with the subsequent prompt overpayment demonstrates a complete absence of intent to evade the tariff.

5 Conclusion: The defendant requests that the Court dismiss this claim in its entirety as the tariff was paid and no loss was incurred.

MrJenkinsEsq

No loss is dead after Beavis, the charge there was upheld despite ParkingEye losing nothing, so a judge may skip over the point as soon as they see it. It's better framed in terms of legitimate interest. And the consideration period is only the time needed to read and accept the terms, the code says 5 minutes, and nothing here suggests longer was needed, so pointing at a 28 minute stay helps them, not you. "Intent to evade" is irrelevant too, breach doesn't need intent. Also, you say you weren't driving then write "the defendant purchased" and "her bank statement". Keep keeper and driver separate throughout. I would go with something like this, based on what you've described.

EDITED:

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. The Defendant was not the Driver. There is no presumption that a keeper was driving, and a keeper is under no duty to name the Driver: VCS Ltd v Edward (2023), HHJ Gargan, on appeal, claim H0KF6C9C. The Claimant can only pursue the keeper by full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is put to strict proof of that, including that a compliant Notice to Keeper was given within the period required by paragraph 9. The Claimant pleads that the Defendant was the driver and, in the alternative, is liable as keeper. Those are inconsistent factual cases on a matter within the Claimant's own knowledge. The Defendant cannot know which case is to be answered and requires the Claimant to state which it verifies.

3. The Claimant's own ANPR data shows the vehicle entered at 12:00 and left at 12:28 on 24/12/2025, a stay of 28 minutes; ANPR records the times the vehicle crossed the boundary, not the time it was parked, so any period of parking was necessarily shorter. The Driver did not pay on arrival, but at 13:01 that same day, before any charge was issued, the tariff was paid through RingGo, the Claimant's own payment channel at this site, for this vehicle and location, covering 2 hours: more than four times the time spent on site. The receipt was sent to the Claimant at appeal stage; it rejected the appeal and issued this claim regardless. The Claimant has received and kept more than the tariff for the stay, and cannot keep the tariff while suing on a charge that depends on the tariff not having been paid. The Claimant pleads that the charge arises where no valid payment was purchased 'To Cover The Duration Parked'; the payment made covered the duration parked four times over. A term requiring payment for the time parked is not a term making payment by a particular moment the condition on which the charge arises. The Driver complied with the former, and on the Claimant's pleaded case the trigger for the charge never arose. If the Claimant contends the charge turns on the timing of payment rather than the fact of it, it is put to strict proof, with contemporaneous photographs of the signs, of a prominent term saying so; any ambiguity in its own signs is read against it (contra proferentem; s.69 Consumer Rights Act 2015). Beavis is distinguished: the charge there protected a legitimate interest in the turnover of spaces in a busy free car park, while the only interest identified here is payment of the tariff, which was paid. A £100 charge, inflated to £170, for paying some 30 minutes after leaving protects no interest the Claimant has pleaded, is out of all proportion, and is an unenforceable penalty.

Le_Kirk

What don't you understand? Both @Gr1pr and @Coupon-mad are showing you how to get to the first page of the forum.

Coupon-mad

You literally just click there to page one!

My signature tells you where the link is:

SnoopyMiffy30

I think I have found the thread but it’s all too much for me to undertsand. I don’t know about law etc so do I just keep paragraphs 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 exactly the same and then add this to paragraph 3

• The allegations 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, the Defendant is the Registered Keeper.
• The Defendant was not the driver, there is no presumption that a keeper was driving, and im under no duty to name the Driver.
• The Claimant's own ANPR data shows the vehicle entered at 12:00 and left at 12:28 on 24/12/2025, a stay of 28 minutes.  ANPR records the time the vehicle crossed the boundary, not the time it was parked.  Any period of parking was necessarily shorter than  28 minutes. 
• The Driver did not pay on arrival , but the tariff was paid shortly after and the Same Day, before any charges were issued.  At 13:01 a payment was made through RINGO, the claimants own payment channel at the site, for this vehicle and location, covering 2 hrs.  This is more than four times the vehicle spent on site.
• The RINGo receipt was sent to the Claimant at appeal stage.  The Claimant rejected the appeal and issued a claim regardless.
• The Claimant had received and kept more than the tariff for the stay.  It cannot keep the tariff and also sue for a charge that depends on the tariff not having been paid.
• The Claimant pleads that the payment must  “Cover The Duration Parked”.  The payment made covered the duration parked, four times over.
• The Claimant pleads that the charge arises where no valid payment was purchased  “ To Cover The Duration Parked”.  A term requiring payment for the time parked is not the same as a term making payment by a particular moment the condition on which the charge arises. The Driver complied with the former, and on the Claimants pleaded case the trigger for the charge never arose.
• If the Claimant contends the charge is instead triggered by timing of payment rather than the fact of it, it is to strict proof, with contemporaneous photographs of the signs, of a term saying so, and that term was so prominent that a Driver would have known the moment  of payment mattered.  Any ambiguity in the Claimants own signs must be read against it (contra proferentem, and s.69 of the Consumer  Rights Act 2015).
• Beavis is distinguished. The charge there was upheld because it protected the landowner’s legitimate interest in the turnover of spaces in a busy free car park.  Here, the only interest the Claimant has identified is payment of the tariff, and the tariff has been paid. A £100 charge, inflated to £170 for paying some 30 minutes after leaving protects no interest the Claimant has pleaded.  It is out of proportion and is an unenforceable penalty. 

Gr1pr

No, because it won't fit into the 122 lines allowed in the defence box on MCOL if you add the above as paragraph 3 as well as paragraphs 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , & 10

I suspect that the above might be an alternative suggestion to the template defence, so replacing paragraphs 2 & 3 not an addition , then add 1 plus 4 to 10 as well , but I think it would be too long

But

The following characters are not allowed on MCOL ar all

" < > , so you would have to change the " to ' for each spurious character, I counted at least 4 of them

MrJenkinsEsq

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82151050#Comment_82151050

It's intended to fit in with the template but I'm useless at sticking to the length. I'll shorten it later today.

SnoopyMiffy30

I am clueless lol , but in the template 1,2 then add that as pargraph 3 ? And then add the others I don’t even understand what any of the paragraphs mean as im not clued up on any law stuff to do with parking. I really appreciate all your help everyone though thank you.

Gr1pr

IANAL either

Most of the volunteers here dont have legal training either, but research fills in most of the gaps due to thousands of repetitive roboclaims, usually there is enough information to get by and represent yourself, instead of hiring a lawyer

The 2 paragraphs provided were to replace 2 & 3 in the defence template, but IMHO number 3 is too long and has 4 banned characters in it

You should probably wait for a more concise paragraph 3 , one that doesn't contain air quotes " " "

I am sure that the final 10 paragraph defence will be better than you or I could write as lay people

Le_Kirk

The template defence thread gives instructions such as adjust paragraph #2 to add but not the driver. Your paragraph #3 then refutes the POC, which is that a ticket wasn't purchased that covered the whole of the stay. A payment was made using the Ringgo app for two hours parking. The Ringgo receipt was sent to the claimant during the appeal process. Save the rest for the witness statement.