We only need to see the N1SDT Claim Form. You can delete the other forms and dispose of the physical ones.
The response from ECP is riddled with evasions, falsehoods, and a deliberate misreading of the Equality Act 2010. Their reply is not only factually incorrect but potentially discriminatory in law.
False Claim About the Equality ActECP says:
“Under the Equality Act 2010, public authorities are required to comply with the public sector equality duty, whereas private entities are not.”
This is legally false and misleading. Section 29(1)–(7) of the Equality Act 2010 does apply to private companies, including parking firms.
The duty to make reasonable adjustments is not limited to public bodies. The public sector equality duty (s.149) is separate from the individual duties owed to disabled service users under s.20–21.
Mischaracterising the Role of the Blue BadgeECP parrots standard nonsense about Blue Badges not applying in private car parks. That misses the point entirely.
You are not claiming a badge exemption. You are invoking a disability-related inability to comply with the contract at all, due to a flare-up of a chronic medical condition. The driver’s disability directly prevented timely compliance, and that is what triggers the Equality Act duty — not the presence or absence of a badge.
Refusal to Engage Post-Debt Referral“Once the debt is transferred to a collection agency, any further correspondence must be directed to them…”
This is plainly mendacious.
ECP remains the data controller and principal.The obligation to consider a request for a reasonable adjustment cannot be delegated to a third party. BPA rules (PPSCoP §11.2) make clear that a complaint must still be addressed.
Misstatement of Appeal DeadlineECP again insists the appeal was late based on the NtK issue date, not the date of presumed service. Under PoFA Schedule 4 para. 9(5), a 28-day deadline begins after the notice is given — that is, two working days after posting, not from the issue date itself.
So, you respond to ECP with the following:
Subject: Escalated Complaint – Equality Act Discrimination and Misrepresentation
PCN Reference: 88887437223
Dear Euro Car Parks,
Thank you for your response dated 4 April 2025. I must raise serious concerns regarding the content of your reply, which contains multiple factual and legal inaccuracies.
Firstly, your claim that the Equality Act 2010 does not apply to private companies is entirely incorrect. Sections 29(1) to (7) of the Act apply to all service providers, including private parking operators. You have a legal duty to avoid discrimination and to make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals.
Secondly, your comments about the Blue Badge are irrelevant to the basis of my representation. I did not claim special parking privileges based on the badge. I explained that I am disabled and that the overstay occurred because I was physically unable to return to my vehicle on time due to a medical issue related to my disability. The Blue Badge was simply provided as evidence of my status as a disabled person.
Thirdly, your refusal to deal with my representation on the grounds that the matter has been passed to a debt recovery agent is both procedurally and legally flawed. You remain responsible as the data controller and principal. The duty to consider a complaint about disability discrimination is not something you can outsource.
Fourthly, your repeated assertion that my appeal was out of time is inaccurate. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states that the 28-day period begins after the notice is “given,” which is defined as two working days after posting, not the issue date printed on the letter.
Since your response, I have received and been served with a County Court claim form issued on 10 April 2025. Therefore, this matter has now entered litigation. You are formally advised that this correspondence, including your reply dated 4 April and my response here, will be relied upon as evidence in support of the defence, and if necessary, in support of any counterclaim or application for costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to your unreasonable behaviour.
Your failure to acknowledge or apply your statutory duties under the Equality Act 2010, your refusal to consider a disability-related representation, and your repeated misstatements of legal obligations will be fully raised in court.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
[Address]
Now, regarding the Claim form...
With an issue date of 10th April, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 29th April to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 13th May 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=0Otherwise, 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