Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: butchos12 on February 26, 2026, 09:23:46 pm

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: butchos12 on April 22, 2026, 10:27:53 pm

OK, I've tweaked to major on reasonable reliance on the time on the ticket, while also setting out reasonableness of paying within 5 mins.

I've included the claim for discretionary costs based on unreasonable PAP conduct (and surprised myself with how much time i've already spent on this...)

Fingers crossed, and thanks again for the input!

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: butchos12 on April 22, 2026, 08:40:19 pm

Thanks DWMB.
And apologies - first point is a doh for me, as it was 2025, so I'll amend.
Completely get the second point - I'll have another look. That's what I was trying to get at by referring to the ticket, ie if there's a contract then surely what's printed on the ticket forms part of that contract. But admittedly I had assumed that the consideration and grace periods were essentially independent.

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: DWMB2 on April 22, 2026, 08:27:06 pm

A couple of points.

Firstly, you need to check the relevant Code of Practice for your references. V1.1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice came into effect in February 2025. The operator can't reasonably be bound by a Code of Practice that didn't exist at the time of the parking event. Find the BPA Code of Practice that was in force at the time and use that.

You'll need to check exactly what the Code of Practice that was in effect at the time says about Grace and Consideration periods. In their current form, you don't get to add both together to give you 15 minutes of extra time. The consideration period is simply a period of time allowed for the motorist to consider the terms on offer and leave if he doesn't accept them. If he chooses to remain there, this is not added on to his permitted time. The grace period is intended to account for the time taken to do things such as find a space, pay, and then leave at the end of the paid for period.

The operator's argument will be that you paid for 2 hours, and spent 2 hours 14 in the car park.

I wonder if a more straightforward argument would be that you relied in good faith on the time printed on the ticket. This argument would be weak if you had (for example) purchased the ticket an hour after parking, but doesn't seem like an inherently unreasonable assumption when the ticket was purchased less than 5 minutes after entry.

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: butchos12 on April 22, 2026, 08:04:56 pm

Right here we go (Parties etc complete in my original version). most grateful for any thoughts/constructive criticsim:

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. The Defendant does not recall the content of any signage in the vicinity of the car park and the Claimant is put to strict proof as to the existence of any alleged contract, or the terms of such a contract.

3. The Claimant’s case is very poorly particularised and therefore it is impossible for the Defendant to respond properly to. However, to assist the Court the Defendant admits and avers the following facts:

(a.) It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX (‘the vehicle’) at the time of the alleged contravention and that the vehicle was parked at St Nicholas Street, Weymouth (‘the car park’).
(b.) It is admitted that on 7.5.22 the vehicle was parked in the car park.
(c.) It is the Claimant’s case that the vehicle entered the car park at 10:35:12AM. This is not disputed.
(d.) It is the Claimant’s case that the Defendant purchased a £2 ticket at 10:39:50AM. The Defendant recalls using a ‘pay and display’ machine within the car park. The Defendant’s records confirm such a purchase at 10:39AM.
(e.) The Defendant recalls receiving a ticket from the machine. The Defendant avers that this ticket would have indicated an ‘issue time’ and a required departure time of 2 hours after purchase, i.e. 12:39PM
(f.) It is the Claimant’s case that the Defendant exited the car park at 12:49:25PM. 2 hours, 9m 25s after the ticket was purchased. This is not disputed.
 
4. The Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA). To the extent that any contact is established, the Defendant avers that the terms are taken to include the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice v1.1.

5. Table 1 of Annex B of this Code of Practice contains the mandatory minimum consideration period and grace periods  - 5 minutes, and 10 minutes respectively.

6. As a result, the Defendant avers that a minimum 5 minutes consideration period should apply, and therefore the ticket was purchased within such a period after entry to the car park at 12:35.

7. The mandatory minimum grace period of 10 minutes also applied. For a ticket issued at 10:39:50, the grace period would extent to 10:49:50. It is not in dispute that the Defendant had left the car park by 10:49:25, within the grace period.

8. While the Defendant was within both the minimum consideration period and minimum grace period, and therefore no extenuating circumstances are required to be demonstrated, such extenuating circumstances did exist, and were set out to the Claimant in pre-action correspondence.

9. Taking the above into account, therefore, even to the extent that the Court finds that a contract was established, no breach of contract will be established. The Defendant purchased a ticket within the consideration period. The Defendant exited within the grace period.

10. In the alternative, there is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4 and the Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
11. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.

12. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.

Costs
13. The Claimant has throughout the pre-action phase, been unresponsive to communications, has refused to answer multiple requests for clarification in accordance with the pre-action protocol. The Claimant refused to allow the Defendant to discuss the case with a lawyer. Had the Claimant cooperated in such ways, it would have needed to acknowledge the above facts and ought not to have issued the claim. The Defendant therefore respectfully asks that the Court takes this into account and utilises its discretion to award reasonable costs in favour of the Defendant. A draft schedule of costs is attached.

Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: butchos12 on April 21, 2026, 07:31:38 pm

Thanks for the steer, I'll get on it tonight

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: DWMB2 on April 21, 2026, 06:56:22 pm

Given you've already identified the driver, and clearly have good knowledge of the events (in order to be able to tell you have the basis of a sound meritorious defence), I'd be minded to lead with this.

The 'generic' defence about vague particulars is (in my personal opinion) best deployed when a defendant doesn't have any stronger grounds to dispute. In my anecdotal experience, judges often prefer to discuss the facts of the case than an overly technical debate.

If you can show us a draft based on what you believe are your grounds of defence, we can advise.

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: butchos12 on April 21, 2026, 05:28:06 pm

Bumping this in the hope of a reply. My feeling, having read the other threads, is to draft a defence asking for strike out citing Chan, and in the alternative disputing the facts...

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: butchos12 on April 18, 2026, 08:43:38 pm

Hi All

I have now received a claim form, link as follows: https://ibb.co/vCY0Ctkn (https://ibb.co/vCY0Ctkn) along with aknowledgement of service etc forms.

Having read the rest of the forum, it appears to me that the suggestion will be to respond with a standard defence, given the lack of full paritculars. I assume that this would be the appropriate response here?

As predicted, they have not responded to my requests for information. If the suggestion is to apply for a strike out, I assume my application for costs ought to accompany this?

I expect everyone asks this, but I think I also have a good factual defence, given the timings of my visit (paid within 5 mins of arrival, 9 minutes over the paid for period, plus mitigating circumstances), so if there is any benefit at all to including this in the defence, I'd be grateful for thoughts!

(https://ibb.co/vCY0Ctkn)

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: InterCity125 on March 18, 2026, 05:49:48 pm

I'd leave it for them to make contact.

It's not the defendant's job to chase the claimant.

Besides, we've seen cases were the claimant doesn't provide responses for 6 to 12 months - this looks terrible if the matter escalates.

Leave it to them to build their own funeral pyre!!

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: butchos12 on March 18, 2026, 05:33:29 pm

Thanks. I'll follow up. At least that way there will be plenty on evidence that they have consciously ignored their obligations

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: DWMB2 on March 18, 2026, 11:57:12 am

If they don't respond, then I'd just raise this when it gets to the matter of costs if you win. If you believe the answers to your questions will be particularly illuminating you can of course chase them for a reply.

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: butchos12 on March 17, 2026, 07:59:20 pm

Just a question about how to address the lack of response to my clarifying questions. 30 days have passed since my LoR and questions, so they are in breach of the PAP. What's the thoughts on pursuing this with DCB legal? It would presumably need to result in an application to the court eventually if I wanted a reply. But it would seem an opportunity to demonstrate that they are in breach of the protocol which might be useful for costs etc later on. Thoughts?

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: ixxy on March 01, 2026, 09:32:25 am

If there was an expiry time on the ticket I would agree you have a strong defence. If the ticket didn't have an expiry time or you can't prove it did your defence is pretty week.

The case with Excel parking last year changed the code or practice so that insisting on purchasing the parking on entry is no longer allowed. As long as sufficient time is bought on site during the stay that is acceptable. In practice that means you can pay just before you leave (many car parks are now specifically pay on exit). All this means the time taken to pay is irrelevant, the only start point for parking is the ANPR entry time. Thats how the industry works, if you can convince a judge otherwise it'll potentially have ramifications for the industry.

So the defence above.

1. Machine timings, not relevant.
2. You can ask, but unless there was an expiry time also irrelevant.
3. Possibly but you will need signage images. Again the whole paid parking ANPR industry equates time on site with the period of parking. This is why there is a grace period in the CoP.

They pobably will have date stamped images of signage in place when it was erected.

It's likely to be discontined before court as its a numbers game, not on the strength of your defence.

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: InterCity125 on March 01, 2026, 08:46:30 am

None of this is a problem.

We can put Euro Car Parks to strict proof to provide timings from their payment machine.

We can also ask ECP themselves to state the 'expiry time' which would have been shown on the ticket based on the time of payment - nothing like getting the claimant to provide evidence which destroys their own case!!

Car park signage is often ambiguous regarding time parked vs time on site - under consumer law, ambiguous terms must be interpreted in a manner which favours the consumer - known as 'contra proferentem'.

Your defence is solid - nothing to worry about.

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: butchos12 on February 28, 2026, 08:04:22 pm

Thanks intercity. The car park is being demolished so it's surrounded by boards. That means I can't buy another ticket, but equally I don't think they will be able to provide contemporaneous proof of the notices etc.

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: InterCity125 on February 28, 2026, 08:41:07 am

You defence is already very strong particularly their acknowledged timings etc.

If you live near the car park you could always return and purchase a 'test ticket' to prove how the physically printed expiry time is exactly 2 hours from the exact purchase time.

The operator will almost certainly rely on a contract term or argument that makes it the driver's responsibility to ensure the 'total time on site' is covered by the 'time purchased' - this would of course make the expiry time on the ticket irrelevant - that would obviously make the parking operator look pretty stupid considering the ticket is the confirmation of the contract which the operator has just formed with the client. 

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: butchos12 on February 27, 2026, 07:48:32 pm

Thanks. I didn't retain the ticket, but their correspondence does acknowledge a. the time of payment and b. that it entitled me to 2 hours parking. This is why it seems such a nonsense to me that they are even continuing the claim. But thanks. I'll post next correspondence here.

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: ixxy on February 27, 2026, 03:35:40 pm

You're not going to win on your interpretation of what constitutes parking, if you did it would put a wrecking ball through the whole ANPR business model as the operator will have no way of knowing when you started and finished parking.

InterCity125 makes a good point about expiry times, many operators still use receipt templates from the era of pay and display.

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: InterCity125 on February 27, 2026, 08:06:35 am

Quick question - do you by chance have the original parking ticket that you purchased on the day?

I ask this because that ticket often contains the 'expiry time' of said ticket.

The parking operator's are lazy with regards to the technology which they use to issue tickets meaning, that the expiry time is often just (in your case) 2 hours after the precise time you made payment - therefore, if the matter ever comes to court, you could easily demonstrate that your 'confirmation of contract' (aka the parking ticket) specifically set out the expiry time of your parking session.

The 'expiry time' will of course be at odds with the operators claim - they will use the 'time on site' argument which of course never considers the time it takes to enter and find a space / leave the space and leave plus your grace period.

The point being, that a confirmation of contract which states the expiry time will always trump any parking operator assertion that suggests your time on site exceeded your paid time.

Of course, if they wished, the operator could adopt a system where the entered registration mark would be matched up with the entry time and, as such, a ticket could be issued which stated the expiry time based on their 'time on site' rules - they choose not to adopt that method.

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: jfollows on February 26, 2026, 09:47:12 pm

Both?
Basically the more documentation, the better, and the better informed you are, the better. Also you can’t rely on anyone here, not me for sure, to be around when you need us!

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: butchos12 on February 26, 2026, 09:41:30 pm

Thank you. That's reassuring. So shall I just post updates here when I next hear from them, or is it worth reviewing the other cases on here to save your time?

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: jfollows on February 26, 2026, 09:34:52 pm

OK, so there is a well trodden path in which DCB Legal will issue a N1SDT court claim, but which - if defended - leads to a 99% certainty of a discontinuation before having to pay the court fee. There are many cases documented here.

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: butchos12 on February 26, 2026, 09:28:26 pm

Apologies, the LoC and the calls are with DCB Legal. Will amend original post.

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: jfollows on February 26, 2026, 09:26:55 pm

Stop talking to DCBL. You are only opening yourself up to saying something which could be used against you later. A Letter of Claim from DCB Legal is more important.

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: butchos12 on February 26, 2026, 09:25:33 pm

https://ibb.co/7NZFQh6P

Image did not seem to load in original post...

Title: Euro Car Parks/DCBL Letter of Claim - 4 mins consideration, <10 mins over paid time
Post by: butchos12 on February 26, 2026, 09:23:46 pm

Hi All

First time post, so forgive transgressions! I have also started to respond to the claim by myself, so again please go easy on mistakes this far.
 
Basic facts, May 2025, entered car park 10:35hrs , paid £2 for 2 hours, contactless at 10:39(50s), left 12:49(25s).

I did not receive the initial charge as I had failed to update the V5. When I subsequently updated the V5, I received the 'Final Reminder' for £170 in Jan 2026. Picture of notice here (https://ibb.co/7NZFQh6P)

I responded, acknowledged that I was the driver (sorry, have now noted this in 'read first'), but denied the claim, on the basis that the fee was paid within 4 mins of entry and left the car park less than 10 minutes over the paid for time.

In addition, I set out (with photo evidence), that I had in fact been back in the car park at 10:28, but my toddler soiled her nappy so I changed that in the car, hence I was anywhere near 10 mins over. I reserved the right to challenge on additional grounds should the matter proceed.

I sent a separate letter requesting further information, asking the following:
1. You have sent pictures of me driving in and out of the car park, not any pictures of me parked. I therefore have no information as to the time that I was actually parked. Please provide details of the time that you claim I was parked for and therefore why I was in contravention of the terms.
2. Please confirm whether you are a member of the British Parking Association and confirm which version of the Code of Practice applied at the time.
3. Please confirm the amount that you received for payment at the time of parking, and the exact timing of that payment.
4. Please confirm the consideration period you have registered with ATA.
5. Please confirm, following your answers to points 1, 2, and 3 and 4, why you consider that I have exceeded the mandatory grace period as set out in the Code of Practice.
6. Please confirm, as required under the protocol, whether interest or other charges are continuing.
7. Please confirm that DCBL is an approved DVLA ATA registered debt collection agency.


In response, I received a letter of claim from DCBL [amend: DCB Legal], and a response from Euro Car Parks.

The Euro Car Parks response said that the "signage on site is quite clear and clearly sets out the rules and regulations of the site and tariffs (if applicable.) By entering the site the driver has accepted the contract ... A ticket matching your registration was purchased for £2 this would have entitled your vehicle to park for up to 2 hours according to the clearly displayed tariff. Your vehicle entered at 1035 and exited at 12:49, a total stay of 2 hours and 14 minutes."

The P&D/permit purchased did not cover the date and time of the parking and therefore the notice has been issued correctly."
[/i]

DCBL [amend: DCB Legal] emailed a link to respond to the LoC. I used the electronic portal to respond, again denying the claim, attaching my detailed letter including photographic evidence, and reiterating my questions.

I received an email reply saying that despite my 'points of discpute, I had not sent any evidence'. I therefore called DCBL [amend: DCB Legal] asking why they were stating this. I was informed that in facf the 'points of dispute' are the questions I had put to them. I asked to speak to a lawyer as even on their best case i had paid within 4 minutes and left <10 mins after my paid for period, and this was before the extenuating circumstances I cite above. I was told my case was 'not suitable for escalation'. However, they acknoeledged that they needed to respond to my requests for information and agreed to do so.

So, that's where I am currently. I am logging my time and have at each point put them on notice as to costs.

Apologies, my scanner isn't working so I can't upload other letters at the moment. Happy to set out more detail or scan in other docs when i'm able.

Thanks in advance for any views and suggestions on next steps.

[Edit: in case useful, this car park is in the process of being demolished and it is not possible to take photos of any signage]