Free Traffic Legal Advice

Ideally you need a better pic - their allegation is 'left site' but if that is not on the signs then there's nothing to enforce against.  It says 'Customers only' which you were, but can't see if it also says need to stay on site.  Worth a try with B&Q to see if they will quash it.

Note, you need to avoid 'I parked' - refer only to the driver in the 3rd person.  There are likely some deficiencies with their PCN to allow transfer of liability to keeper.

There's a statutory process to get it reset if you didn't get the original PCN:

https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/charge-certificates-london-local-authorities-and-tfl-act-2003-london-local-autho/

You need to he proactive and get the necessary forms sent off once the debt is registered - there's a limited no of days where the council must cancel the OFR - after that it is out of time and the council can reject it.

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/

Please show the PCN, and if possible the signage at the site.  What is the arrangement for gym users normally?  Prohibitions ae incapable of forming a contract, and you appear to be within a 5 min consideration period, so there are grounds for appeal - whether Parking Eye will see it that way is another matter...!

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/

Get the defence in pronto before DCBL have time to push the default judgement button!  The POC are the usual waffle from DCBL, but in this case you would appear to have a defence along the lines that the vehicle was not parked on the claimant's land so you can work round that.  In general where DCBL use this vague POC template, they discontinue before paying the fee as long as some defence is entered - sample defence by b789 below, you will need to adjust to suit your case - for instance you have probably identified the driver?

Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.

You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.

Quote

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 adequately 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 PD 16, para 7.3(1);

(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 submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. 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 due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.

AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.

AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).

ORDER:

1. The claim is struck out.

2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.

Log onto MCOL ASAP and see if you can still put in AOS, you should be just in time. That will buy another 2 weeks to sort out the defence.

Appeal along the lines of:

I am the hirer of the vehicle and, under no obligation to do so, will not be identifying the driver. Your PCN does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act in order to transfer liability to me as hirer  (namely failure to include the required documents), and I am therefore unable to assist you further in this matter. I look forward to your confirmation the PCN has been cancelled.

Make sure you don't inadvertently click on a 'I was the driver' button.

They will probably reject it; and they are IAS for subsequent appeal so not that high a chance of success there either. So you would need to tough out the 'debt collector' letters and see if they make a small claims court case. This should be easily defendable on the above basis.