You’re not imagining it – those dates are unhelpful and front-load all the work onto you, while DCB Legal still haven’t even committed to paying the trial fee.
1. What the court has effectively said
– The PoC say no more than “vehicle parked without a valid pay by phone transaction” plus the usual boilerplate.
– Your defence is: these PoC are still too bare to meet CPR 16.4 and you invited strike-out.
– The procedural judge has chosen not to strike the claim or your defence. So the 16.4 point is preserved, but it’s now for the trial judge to decide, not a done deal.
Separately, the court has ordered witness statements by 19 December 2025. That is a binding direction on both sides unless it is varied.
2. The defence is all about CPR 16.4
A defence is a pleading. It explains why, at the pleadings stage, you could not properly answer a vague claim.
A witness statement is evidence. You are allowed to say:
– At the time I filed my defence, the PoC were too bare for me to plead fully.
– I maintain that they still fail CPR 16.4 and that the claim should be struck out.
– However, in compliance with the court’s later order to file a witness statement, I set out below the limited facts I can give, without waiving my criticisms of the PoC.
That lets you give the four key facts:
– Site is an abandoned industrial estate, businesses closed.
– Terms require the driver to be a “customer” of a non-existent business, so compliance is impossible.
– There is a gate that is always left open, so this is obviously a trap, not genuine control.
– The vehicle was only on site for 11 minutes.
You can then argue, in the alternative, that even if the judge finds the PoC just about adequate, on those facts there is either no contract, or no breach, or the charge is plainly an unfair penalty. That does not contradict the defence. It shows you did not have enough pleaded information then, but you are now complying with the court’s later order and giving the judge what little factual background you can.
3. Your specific dilemma: file on 19 December if ECP/DCB have done nothing?
Yes. Even if they have not served any WS by that date, You should still serve a short, tightly-focused WS on the deadline. Waiting to see if they pay the trial fee or serve a WS is too risky, for three reasons:
a) You would be in clear breach of a court order.
If ECP pay the fee and eventually serve a WS, they can point to your non-compliance. You could be looking at needing relief from sanctions just to rely on your own evidence. That is wholly avoidable.
b) Judges are often more forgiving of late claimant evidence than of a LiP who ignored directions.
You do not want to hand ECP/DCB an easy procedural point while relying on the court’s indulgence for yourself.
c) If you serve nothing, and they serve something (even late), the judge has only their factual account.
Your 16.4 argument may or may not land. If it doesn’t, you will have zero evidence on the merits to oppose their narrative.
4. The “judge might say you knew enough”
That risk exists whether or not you file a WS. The judge can already see from:
– The PoC: “no valid pay by phone transaction”; and
– The fact you’ve defended at all,
that you have some idea what incident this is about.
Your best protection is not to refuse to give evidence. It is to make the structure of your WS absolutely clear:
– Primary: the PoC never gave you the basic particulars that CPR 16.4 requires (time, date, signage relied on, contractual terms, how the sum is calculated, whether they sue you as driver or keeper, etc). Re-explain that, with the PoC exhibited.
– Prejudice: explain that as a LiP you were put in an impossible position at the pleadings stage, forced to defend in the dark, and that the court should not reward ECP for using vague, generic PoC.
– Alternative: only then, “for the avoidance of doubt”, set out the four factual points you know and why, even on those limited facts, there is no enforceable claim.
If the judge decides “this claim just about passes CPR 16.4”, you have at least given yourself a merits defence. If you serve nothing, you lose both procedurally and on the facts.
5. How to use ECP/DCB behaviour and the timetable
You are absolutely right that the timetable is lopsided: you must do the WS work before ECP have paid the fee, in a claim type where ECP/DCB Legal notoriously discontinue very late. So say so, in clear terms in the WS:
– You are a LiP in a low-value parking claim.
– You have been forced to prepare a WS months before trial and before the claimant has even shown they intend to proceed by paying the trial fee.
– In this ECP/DCB Legal model of bulk litigation, almost all claims are discontinued late if defended, so this is disproportionate and abusive.
– Invite the court to take that conduct into account, especially if they do discontinue late.
That way, if they do drag you through all this and then drop it, you have at least laid the groundwork to argue unreasonable conduct and seek your costs.
6. Bottom line
Given that:
– The court has not struck the claim out.
– There is a clear order requiring WS by 19 December 2025.
– ECP/DCB Legal may or may not pay the fee.
The safest and most sensible course is:
– On 19 December, serve a short, focused WS even if ECP/DCB Legal have served nothing.
– Make it primarily about CPR 16.4 non-compliance and prejudice, with your four key factual points clearly framed as an alternative.
– Keep full proof of service.
Only if the court itself vacates the directions or strikes out the claim before that date would it be sensible not to bother. Anything else (waiting to see if they pay, waiting for their WS first) hands control back to ECP/DCB Legal and exposes you to avoidable procedural risk.
So, if you have not received their WS a few days before the deadline, remind me here and I can put something together that you can use as your WS, unless you fancy preparing it yourself and showing us before submitting it at the deadline.
