Free Traffic Legal Advice

I received a money claim (CCJ) from Euro Car Parks Limited (ECP), represented by DCB Legal Ltd, for a parking charge (PCN) at a petrol station. The reason given was “Your vehicle has overstayed the maximum time period allowed.”

I did not respond to the initial PCN in time and when I finally tried to by calling ECP to appeal they didn’t want to listen and said I had to pay as it’s past the appeal period. The issue at hand is the vehicle was not parked and the driver was using the petrol station services to inflate the tyres of the vehicle. Also it took the driver a longer time than usual as they had a flat tyre, which also caused tyre pressure warning lights to be displayed and the vehicle wasn’t their personal vehicle so it took some time to figure out how to reset the warning light correctly. Additionally, the driver made 2 payments at the air pump because of the longer use.

After further escalation by ECP, the driver has now received a money claim. They are in the process of completing their defence form. Can someone help in advising the best way to defend this?

Thank you

Please read https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/ and amend your post so that you no longer identify the driver. It might be important.

However, if you have already identified the driver to ECP, let us know - you didn’t appeal so you may not have done of course.

Money claim (CCJ) attached

The driver did not identify themself to ECP but the vehicle was a hire vehicle. The initial PCN was issued to the hire company who then provided ECP with the hirer's details to forward the PCN directly to the hirer.

Also, an email was sent to a third party company, who ECP passed on the PCN to before this money claim. This email could potentially identify the driver.

So, if this is the case, you have a defence and you will get advice here in due course on that. You will have to follow the court process but ultimately DCB Legal will discontinue before they have to pay the court fee.

With an issue date of 15th July you had until 4pm on Monday 4th August to submit your defence. If you submitted an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 18th August to submit your defence.

You only needed to submit an AoS if you needed extra time to prepare your defence. Did you submit an AoS? If you din't, you have screwed up badly.

This is a golden ticket and 100% winnable as long as you submitted an AoS or, if you did, a defence by 4pm Monday 18th August.

Before we go any further, you must answer the question... did you submit an AoS?

OK. How did you submit the AoS? Assuming you submitted the AoS to arrive before 4pm on Monday 4th August, ideally using MCOL or by email then you can submit a defence.

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.

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 CPR PD 16.7.3(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 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 CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.

AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals to the judge for 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 5 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.

Hi,

I have finally received a response from the court requesting that the 'Directions questionnaire - small claims track: Form N180' be completed. Is there a specific way in which the form needs to be completed?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track