Free Traffic Legal Advice

3. The driver exited the car park 2 hours and 10 minutes later.

To be precise the car entered and left with a duration of 2 hours 10 minutes and 13 seconds.

Whilst the PCN says '2 hours 10 minutes' it was those 13 seconds that triggered the PCN.  (As they have to give 10 minutes grace period after an allowed period of parking - and, boy, not a second more...)

There are some arguments that the parking (with grace) did not exceed the allowed period, however I believe there's a more generic way of dealing with these claims now that see good chances of discontinuing the claim.  (Wait for others to post)  Although, arguably the grace period is to provide all necessary allowances.

However, where any appeals made or was it ignored?

So, did you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB Legal and, if you did, did you respond to it? Was the N1SDT Claim sent to your current address or the old address? Did you send a data rectification notice to ECP and DCB Legal DPO's instructing them to update their records with your current address for service and to erase your old address?

With an issue date of 27th May, you have until 4pm on Monday 16th June to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 30th 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