With an issue date of 20th May, you have until 4pm on Monday 9th June to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 23rd June to submit your defence.
If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order that goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.
When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF attachment and send as an attachment in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of Euro Car Parks Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
Euro Car Parks Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
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. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
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.
Signed:
Date:
Draft Order for the defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0)
Respond with the following:
Dear Sirs,
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated [DATE]. However, your response fails to properly address the key points raised in my previous correspondence. Specifically, you have failed to answer two fundamental questions under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
In my previous letter, I asked the following questions:
1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.
2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
Your failure to answer these questions is a clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. I require full and clear responses to these questions within 14 days. If you fail to engage properly, this will be brought to the attention of the court, and I will seek costs for unreasonable conduct.
You continue to claim an additional £70, yet the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 made it clear that the parking charge itself covers all operational and enforcement costs. Paragraph 98 of Beavis states that the parking charge is set at a level to cover the costs of managing the scheme and to make a profit. Paragraph 100 further confirms that the charge was set at a level to ensure financial viability and enforcement. This confirms that the parking charge itself already includes the costs of running the scheme, including debt recovery. Adding a further £70 is an attempt at double recovery and is unlawful.
You have also referenced the BPA Code of Practice but not referenced which version applies. Nowhere in any of the versions of the BPA CoP or the new Single Code of Practice does it say that the £70 charge is automatically justified. The Code does not override case law, and it does not exempt you from having to prove that the £70 reflects an actual and reasonable cost incurred. If this charge represents a genuine cost, I require a full breakdown of what it covers.
County Court rulings have consistently struck out this additional charge as an abuse of process. In Britannia Parking v Semark-Jullien (Southampton, 11/11/19, F0HM9E9Z), the court ruled that it was an abuse of process to add an additional sum to the parking charge. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (Bradford, 02/07/20, G4QZ465V), the court again ruled that the claim was tainted by an additional charge that should not have been added. If you proceed with a claim including this charge, I will apply for a strike-out and costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
The £70 charge also breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph 6 of the Act states that any term requiring a consumer to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation is unfair and unenforceable. You have failed to provide any cost breakdown to justify this sum. A blanket £70 charge is neither a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor a proportionate expense.
The Civil Procedure Rules also do not allow recovery of debt collection costs in the Small Claims Track. CPR 27.14(2) makes it clear that these costs are not recoverable. Any attempt to claim them as part of the principal sum is unlawful.
Furthermore, the Government’s Impact Assessment for the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 found that the average cost of debt recovery per claim (not per PCN) was less than £9. This considers that most debt recovery firms operate on a no-win, no-fee basis. Your client’s claim that £70 is a reasonable cost is therefore false.
Within 14 days, I require clear answers to my original two questions regarding the nature of the £70 charge and the legal basis of the PCN. I also require a full breakdown of the £70 charge, including whether it includes VAT, and if so, why I am being charged your client’s VAT liability. Additionally, you must provide evidence that the £70 charge was clearly stated in the contractual signage at the location.
Failure to provide this information will be considered a lack of transparency and may be used in my defence should this matter proceed to court. If you commence proceedings without addressing these issues, I will apply for a strike-out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) on the grounds that you have failed to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol and that the claim is tainted by an abuse of process.
I suggest you review Beavis, the various versions of the BPA CoP and the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, and recent County Court rulings before issuing any claim.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
You can respond to it with the following or you can simply ignore it and wait for the inevitable N1SDT Claim Form that will eventually follow:
DCB Legal Ltd
Direct House
Greenwood Drive
Manor Park
Runcorn
Cheshire
WA7 1UG
By email to: info@dcblegal.co.uk
[Date]
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 20th February 2025
I refer to your Letter of Claim.
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:
[YOUR ADDRESS]
Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.
I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.
Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:
1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.
2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.
I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[YOUR NAME]
Save as a PDF file and attach to an email addressed to info@dcblegal.co.uk and also CC in yourself.[/quote]