-
28th Feb I received an NS1DT Claim Form:
I would appreciate help with my response/defence.
Timeline
* Ticket purchased at machine, car left area within purchased time. ECP claim error entering registration into machine.
* Sign at entrance merely requests full reg is entered
* Notice To Keeper Received and
* Appealed to ECP - Rejected and https://ibb.co/VWBvcVsQ
* Appealed to POPLA - Rejected
* Letter of Claim received. https://ibb.co/zTSCcrkM
* Replied via DCB Legal website asking for certain documents. No response received.
* NS1DT claim received https://ibb.co/v4MZjd4S
Not complied with pre-action protocol
It seems like DCB Legal may not have complied with PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR DEBT CLAIMS in two ways. Firstly by not enclosing information sheet/reply form. Secondly by opening a claim without waiting 30 days from the reply and without providing me the documents I asked for.
3.1c "enclose a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form at
Annex 1 to this Protocol"
There was not an Information Sheet nor a Reply form enclosed with the letter. Although they offer at the bottom of the letter (https://ibb.co/zTSCcrkM) to send a physical copy if I phone then. Does this count at enclosing a copy?
4.2 "the creditor should not start court proceedings less than 30 days from
receipt of the completed Reply Form or 30 days from the creditor providing
any documents requested by the debtor, whichever is the later."
The Letter of Claim was dated 22 Jan 2026. I replied 30 days after the date of the letter on 21st Jan 2026. I replied via a form on DCB Legal's website which they claim was a reply form, althouh the form differed in some respects from the form in Annex 1 of the PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR DEBT CLAIMS. In my reply I noted that they had not sent a reply for or information sheet. I indicated that I needed certain information (maintenance records/known issue list/certification the payment machine is fit for purpose and free of detects,the Terms and COnditions that ECP claim were in force, and a breakdown of the claimed debt). I saved copies of the form that I submitted on my computer.
I have not been sent any of the requested documents (in fact not had any response at all), and then received a Claim From on 28th Feb. This is less than 30 days after the reply.
Outline of Defence
This is how I'm thinking of defending:
1. disagree driver entered invalid reg, error in machine.
2. sign (https://ibb.co/Qvc7FWHm) says "please enter full reg". Why did they include "please" if it's a term and condition rather than an optional request? Not a term and condition
2a. CRA 2015 - contract terms must be fair and transparent. Disproportionate financial sanction for a paid for service is unfair.
2b. CRA 2015 69Contract terms that may have different meanings
(1)If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.
3. Driver left within purchased time - ECP suffered no loss of revenue, no overstay, no misuse of space
Therefore charge is punitive not protective (Legitimate interest test form Beavis 2015 - complied in substance)
4. DCB Legal have substantially not complied with preaction protocol so the case should be stayed or discontinued
Thanks in advance for any thoughts or advice shared.. -
-
Has the driver been revealed to the parking operator? (In either appeal)
-
-
I've acknowledged that I'm the registered keeper of the vehicle in both appeals. I've acknowledged paying for the ticket in the POPLA appeal. I have not stated that I was the driver.
-
-
Please show us both appeals - we need to be clear on exactly what they have as evidence - quite often appeals made where someone states, "I bought a ticket" is pretty much an acknowledgement that you were driving.
-
-
ECP appeal
and
POPLA APPEAL
Sorry for the formatting gore, this is the best I have as a transcript.
Ground for appeal
The vehicle was not improperly parked
Appeal clarication
You were still within the time you paid for
What time did you park?
24/11/2024 11:30
What time did you leave the car park?
24/11/2024 14:00
How long did you pay for in the car park?
3 hours
Can you upload any evidence to support that you were still within the time you paid for?
Appeal clarication
Your car parking ticket was clearly displayed
Where within your car did you display your parking ticket?
on the dashboard
Can you upload any evidence to support that your parking ticket was in clear view?
-
Appeal clarication
The terms and conditions of the car park were not properly signed
Why do you perceive that the terms and conditions of the car park were not properly signed (for example where
they blocked, too small, or not showing)?
Eurocarparks claim I have made a "major keying error" but on the sign at the entrace to the carpark there is no discussion of
a major keying error. Not one of those three words appears on the sign even individually (see attached photo). Eurocarparks
seem to be construing a request on their sign "please enter full vehicle registration" as a term and condition There are
various pieces of information on the sign at the entrance. Some are in a small font, and some are in a large font. The block
I've highlighted in blue appears to be the terms and conditions that motorists are expected to absorb and comply with. This
is suggested by the design - a bold font, plenty of space around the writing to make it easy to read, and icons to structure it.
The block i've highlighted in red in the uploaded image is written in a small font. Some of it is phrased as a request ("please
Appeal details Edit
extract of ECP spreadsheet containing my
payment
Motorist Ocial Document
enter..."), while some of it refers to another part of the information as details rather than T&Cs ("see separate sign for
details"). Most likely these are not intended to be absorbed by motorists due to the conversational request-like wording
("please enter") and the design of the sign deemphasising this block. Many or most motorists will therefore interpret the
Terms and Conditions as these three key points from the bottom block highlighted in blue: 1) purchase and retain a valid
ticket or pay by phone 2) only park in a disabled bay if you hold a bdage 3) motorcyclists must pay the same tari as other
vehicles
Can you provide any evidence to support your claim that the terms and conditions were not properly signed?
Appeal clarication
You complied with the signage at the car park
What did the signage at the car park say?
1) purchase and retain a valid ticket or pay by phone 2) only park in a disabled bay if you hold a bdage 3) motorcyclists must
pay the same tari as other vehicles
Why do you consider you complied with the signage?
I paid for parking for 3 hours, entered full vehicle registration (not partial), displayed my ticket on the car dashboard, and
stayed less than 3 hours.
Why does the parking operator consider you to have failed to comply with the signage?
Eurocarparks claim that I have made a "major keying error" although there is no mention of major keying errors in the terms
and conditions sign at the entrance. The parking operator claims that "Please enter full vehicle registration via the key pad" is
a term/condition despite being written as a request and written in a small font and deemphasised in the graphic design of
the sign (see previous box). Even if this small font request IS a term and condition that I am deemed to have agreed to, the
parking operator claims that I have entered an incorrect registration, but have not provided evidence that I mistyped (such as
CCTV footage of me entering the wrong number), and have not provided evidence that their machinery is in good order,
there are no software bugs either within the machine, or within the onward data transmission process, and no administrative
errors. Why would the driver enter a registration mark other than that of the vehicle? It doesn't make much sense. Even if
this small font request IS a term and condition AND there was no machine or process fault within ECP Systems and I made an
error as I entered the full vehicle reg myself, I did not enter a partial registration, but I entered the full vehicle reg so was in
compliance with their request to "please enter full vehicle registration". Even if I made a "major keying error", there is nothing
in the terms and conditions that states that vehicle registrations with mistakes incur a penalty charge, and there is no
mention of "major keying error" on the sign. Even if the small font request is a T&C, AND I made an error entering the
registration, this is not a major keying error, as the registration ECP claim I entered is substantially the same as the
registration of the vehicle (SK10HHP vs SK10OWZ). The majority of the letters and numbers ECP claim I entered are identical
to those on the vehicle, in particular the rst sequence of letters are identical, the subsequent sequence of numbers are
identical, and only the last letters are claimed to be dierent. So this is not a major keying error, and certainly nothing that
could have prevented ECP's internal processes matching the payment to the vehcile (this car entered at this time, there was a
payment associated with this similar reg a few minutes after entry). This is a far easier computational task than the one they
already carried out to extract a car registation plate from a million pixels of various colours. I note that Eurocarparks have
retained the payment I made, rather than refunding it as soon as they decided it didn't correspond to any car that entered
the car park...
Can you provide any evidence to support your claim that you complied with the signage at the car park
-
Annotated picture of the sign at entrance from
ECP
Motorist Photo
Please use this to provide an overall summary of the reasons for appealing against the parking charge notice.
ECP have acknowledged that I paid the correct tari, have acknowleged that I departed before the time was elapsed, but
claim I have not complied with their terms and conditions, on faulty grounds. -
-
The type of payment machine used at the location has a history of jumping to the payment stage before a registration mark can be entered in full.
I would log into MCOL and register an Acknowledgement of Service which will buy you some extra time.
Euro Car Parks are idiots and have recently been fined for their behaviour - in particular, failure to reply to enquiries from so called clients!
We can formulate a plan and gather evidence. -
-
Odd "Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track" received. I've received an odd letter attached to an N180 Directions questionnaire.
It says "This is now a defended claim. A copy of the defence has already been sent to you by the defendant. It appears that this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track."
Given that I am the defendant, has this letter been sent to me in error or is this normal? -
-
Is the N180 they have sent you already filled in? If so, this is likely a copy of the Claimant's N180 (as they have to serve a copy on you).
If not, they've presumably attached the wrong boilerplate, however this shouldn't cause you much disadvantage, as you also need to fill in an N180 and serve it on the court/the claimant, and on that form you'll identify yourself as the defendant. Don't use the paper one, fill it in online and serve by email. -
-
It's not filled in. Sounds like the wrong boilerplate was attached by CNBC then.
-
-
Would I expect the Claimant to have served me a copy of their Directions Questionnaire? MCOL says that claimant has filed one several weeks ago. although I've received nothing from them.
-
-
Yes, just as you would send them yours.
I suggest you contact the courts to see what’s going on, and to get them to fix any mistake sooner rather than later.
If the claimant has made a mistake, you need the court to know about it. If the court has made a mistake, they can fix it so you are not disadvantaged further. -
-
Thanks for confirming. I have contacted the court about the missing claimint Directions Questionnaire fairly recently so have not yet received any response from the Court but I expect I will in due course.
Today I have had my mediation call. I agreed to participate and that I needed to know the name/role/authority to settle today, the mediator called back and confirmed the name of the DCBL participant, that they were a litigation support associate, and that they had written authority to settle today.
I offered that they discontinue with no order for costs, or settle for £0. The mediator told me that they wouldn't accept my offer, pushing back. I reiterated my offer once or twice and the mediator took it away to DCBL.
He called back with a settlement offer for £20 from DCBL. I rejected their offer, and reiterated my offer for £0 or discontinuance.
I am expecting a call back from the mediator to confirm whether or not they accept that offer or make another one or whether the mediation has failed although I've not yet had a call back. -
-
The CNBC replied that it's the claimant's responsibility to submit Directions Questionnaire to me.
Should I email the claimant (eurocarparks) to request the Directions Questionnaire? What disadvantage might I be at, having not received it? -
ImgBB 
Optimistic x 1
View List