-
The LoC particulars are flawed because there is NO power 'in the alternative' to hold the keeper liable because the creditor was made aware of 'the name and current address for service for the driver' prior to commencing legal proceedings.
PoFA has nothing to do with their claim.
OP, the issue of addresses is a non-issue from what I can see because they obtained the RK's details as required in the first instance and then used the address of the driver once you had identified yourself as such. At that time, you had updated DVLA. This is coincidental. They used your address as driver which, of course, was your new RK address.
Which IMO is just as well because your defence relies upon the situation of the driver
IMO, this is a straightforward case of a claim in respect of an acknowledged breach. As I read this you're now engaged in extra-procedural correspondence in an effort to get the claimant to withdraw their claim. You might succeed.
But the legal process is for the court to decide.
IMO, the proposed draft order does not accurately reflect your situation i.e. you have acknowledged being the driver and being fully aware of the parking terms.
Some thoughts.
-
-
The LoC particulars are flawed because there is NO power 'in the alternative' to hold the keeper liable because the creditor was made aware of 'the name and current address for service for the driver' prior to commencing legal proceedings.
PoFA has nothing to do with their claim.
OP, the issue of addresses is a non-issue from what I can see because they obtained the RK's details as required in the first instance and then used the address of the driver once you had identified yourself as such. At that time, you had updated DVLA. This is coincidental. They used your address as driver which, of course, was your new RK address.
Which IMO is just as well because your defence relies upon the situation of the driver
IMO, this is a straightforward case of a claim in respect of an acknowledged breach. As I read this you're now engaged in extra-procedural correspondence in an effort to get the claimant to withdraw their claim. You might succeed.
But the legal process is for the court to decide.
IMO, the proposed draft order does not accurately reflect your situation i.e. you have acknowledged being the driver and being fully aware of the parking terms.
Some thoughts.
Hello, sorry for such a tardy response. We submitted an AoS because we were short on time and today I thought I would simply copy and paste the defence above, but I’ve only just seen your comment here.
Thank you for your thoughts - are you suggesting that the defence needs adjusting or is lacking because it doesn’t acknowledge my direct communication with ECP?
For some reason I’m not getting notifications about replies.
Many thanks
Charlotte
-
-
IMO, the proposed draft order does not accurately reflect your situation
The draft order accompanying the defence makes 3 key points:- That the PoC are not compliant with 16.4 of the CPR
- That the claimant could have complied with 16.4 of the CPR but failed to do so
- That the small value of the claim doesn't merit an order for further PoC to be submitted, using further court time/resource
elderberrytree - practically, the outcome is likely to be the same regardless of what defence you choose to submit. The one proposed by b789 nearly always works with DCB Legal cases, leading to the case being discontinued.QuoteFor some reason I’m not getting notifications about replies.
If you scroll to the bottom of the thread, there should be a series of buttons at the bottom right, hit 'Notify'
-
-
IMO, the proposed draft order does not accurately reflect your situation
The draft order accompanying the defence makes 3 key points:- That the PoC are not compliant with 16.4 of the CPR
- That the claimant could have complied with 16.4 of the CPR but failed to do so
- That the small value of the claim doesn't merit an order for further PoC to be submitted, using further court time/resource
elderberrytree - practically, the outcome is likely to be the same regardless of what defence you choose to submit. The one proposed by b789 nearly always works with DCB Legal cases, leading to the case being discontinued.QuoteFor some reason I’m not getting notifications about replies.
If you scroll to the bottom of the thread, there should be a series of buttons at the bottom right, hit 'Notify'
Many thanks for the clarification on this!
Yes have the ‘notify me’ option on, but perhaps some technical issue at my end. Thank you again. -
-
You may need to check your spam, some providers are prone to miscategorising this site's emails.
-
-
You may need to check your spam, some providers are prone to miscategorising this site's emails.
Thank you - haven’t found any so far. But will keep checking.
Would you mind clarifying - for the defence and draft order I’m sending, is it okay to send it all online as advised? The paper claim form I received only gives the paper option seemingly it via the money claim online route. Many thanks! -
-
The defence and draft order should be submitted by email, to the address advised in b789's post.
-
-
Do not use the MCOL to submit a defence. As advised, use email.
-
-
Many thanks both for confirming!
-
-
Hi all,
I’ve finally received the Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track. I’ve attached the first two pages of the document - should I upload the rest of the form or are you familiar?
Separate to this I received a letter from DCB Legal a couple of weeks ago, just informing us that it will go to court.
ECP replied to the last letter I sent them (that you kindly drafted) and I’ve attached this, but they just said they are unable to accept any correspondence and all points have been addressed previously (which is not true of course).
I’d be super grateful for advice on what to do as I need to respond to the court by 18 July.
Many thanks as usual!
Court letter
ECP rejection letter
DCB Legal letter
-
-
Considering ECPs responses, you can sue them for disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. They are a service provider and have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. By refusing to consider your appeal after being told the overstay was due to a disability-related medical issue, they may have breached that duty. Their repeated misstatements about not being responsible once the case was passed to DCB Legal also show a disregard for their ongoing legal obligations.
Two key provisions apply:• Section 15: This covers discrimination arising from disability. It applies where someone is treated unfavourably because of something that results from their disability, and that treatment cannot be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
• Section 20: This imposes a duty on service providers to make reasonable adjustments to avoid placing disabled people at a substantial disadvantage. This includes adjusting rigid procedures like appeal deadlines when disability is involved.
Euro Car Parks’ refusal to consider your appeal after being informed of a disability-related medical event may breach both sections.
If you bring a claim and succeed, you can seek compensation for injury to feelings. This is assessed using the Vento bands, which are guidelines set by the courts:• Lower band (£1,200–£12,100): for less serious cases, such as isolated incidents
• Middle band (£12,100–£36,400): for more serious cases that don’t merit the top band
• Upper band (£36,400–£60,700): for the most serious cases, such as prolonged or malicious discrimination
The amount depends on the impact on you, not just the conduct itself. You don’t need to show financial loss to claim this.
So, you could bring a claim in the County Court for discrimination arising from disability (Sections 15) and failure to make reasonable adjustments (Section 20). If successful, you could be awarded compensation for injury to feelings, typically between £1,000 and £3,000 for less serious cases. You would need to show that you are disabled under the Act, that the overstay was linked to your condition, and that ECP failed to act reasonably once they were informed.
Before suing, you should send a formal Letter Before Claim giving them 14 days to respond. If they don’t resolve the matter, you can issue a claim, which is very straight forward and can be done online through MCOL.
Regarding the forms (N180 DQ) you received with the allocation notice, don't fill in the paper form. Follow these instructions:
Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email. -
-
Evening, thank you as always for such a thorough reply and for all the information regarding completing the form.
With regards to suing ECP - we would very easily be able to prove that the driver is disabled etc (plenty of paperwork, medical records, Blue Badge etc).
With regards to using MCOL to sue ECP - what is the financial outlay for us? Sorry if this sounds stupid, very unfamiliar with the process. Or perhaps you have a nice little explanatory website/flow chart I could look at.
Many thanks again - your help is invaluable. -
-
If you wish to sue you will have to explain how they have discrimated against you, simply being disabled and having a badge doesn't give you a free pass to not comply with the car park rules. For example if the car park is pay on exit and they only allow 10 minutes grace to exit and you have mobility issues that could be grounds for discrimination, if you explained that clearly in your appeal. Buying 2 hours parking and staying for 3 won't wash unless you can show the overstay was directly related to an inability to leave on time. Again that won't wash if you had the opportunity to pay for the extra time you took. You don't sound very clued up on the legal processes, maybe leave thought of suing until after the resolution of current case?
-
Agree x 1
View List