DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 67170--------------------------------------------------
Parkingeye (DCB) Money claim for PCN- Peterborough
By: Dino74 Date: April 15, 2025, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In March 2022 the driver parked at a Parkingeye car park and
paid for parking, the driver was issued a ticket from the
machine onsite - which didn't have ink In as the ticket is not
clear however when looking at it in certain lights you can see
an light imprint of my car reg and the date, no other details.
The original PCN was sent to the drivers old address and it
wasn't until July 2022 the driver had been given post from old
address and the driver emailed parking eye on 25th July 2022 to
give them the new address and said that they dispute the claim
as they paid for the car park on the evening. the driver paid
the amount that was displayed on the app on the ticket machine
that night.
They responded via email in Aug 2022 with an auto response which
said they note the reply to their letter before claim and they
have reviewed the correspondence and their position is that the
parking charge remains due.
the driver then responded via email on 31st August 2022 to say
that they were informed by the machine an amount which was paid
for exchange of parking, they paid this amount and received a
ticket. They asked them to confirm the amount that was paid and
what amount was owed. They said if they let know the difference
in the amount they would pay this.
The driver then received a letter from DCBL 14th Nov 2022 to
which an email reply was sent to say that they acknowledge the
letter and no payment would be made as they dispute the parking
charge.
Then received nothing until 7th October 2024 when another letter
came from DCBL. They responded to this letter via email and said
they had not heard back from them since August 2022 and they
acknowledge the letter and referred them to the last
correspondence.
Another letter from DCBL dated 6th Dec 2024 and again the driver
replied on 18th Dec via email with an acknowledgement and asked
them to refer to the last correspondence.
On the 2nd April 2025 the driver have been sent a Money claim
form from Parking eye through DCB Legal for the CNBS. they have
today (15th April) submitted an AOS saying they intend to defend
all of this claim.
They now need to submit a defence... which is where we would ask
for help please..... They have been doing a lot of research
online and come across the templates of a draft order and two
transcripts along with a template however a concern is that as
it is a generic template it doesn't get some points across which
are:
the driver did pay for the parking session, that they have
supporting evidence, that there has been unreasonable delay in
pursuing the matter, and that any loss suffered by the parking
operator would, in any case, be nil or negligible.
Please could anyone give any advice as to what to send as the
defense? Thank you!
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 67189--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye (DCB) Money claim for PCN- Peterborough
By: jfollows Date: April 15, 2025, 6:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You really need to post up some of what you’re talking about,
see
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
#Post#: 67196--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye (DCB) Money claim for PCN- Peterborough
By: Dino74 Date: April 15, 2025, 6:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I did read this and the only thing I can see I haven't done is
attach a picture of the notice I received? I will attach it
here.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 67221--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye (DCB) Money claim for PCN- Peterborough
By: b789 Date: April 15, 2025, 8:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You could have provided the content of any appeals and response
you received also, photo of the permit. If the permit has
faintly visible detail, it can be enhanced photographically to
reveal what is on there.
You have not told us what the actually allegation on the Notice
to Keeper (NtK) you received was about. It will tell you on the
back. Better still, show us the NtK, both sides. In fact, you
can provide suitably redacted copies of the whole correspondence
by hosting it on DropBox or Google Drive.
As for the claim, when ParkingEye don't think that have much
chance, they farm it out to the incompetents at DCB Legal. What
this means is that if the claim is not struck out for failing to
comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), it will be discontinued anyway.
With an issue date of 2nd April, you had until 4pm on Tuesday
22nd April to submit your defence. However, having submitted an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you now have until
4pm on Tuesday 6th May to submit your defence.
Here is the defence and link to the draft order and relevant
transcripts that go 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 send all the documents as a single PDF
attachment (in the order of 'defence', 'draft order' and then
the 2 'transcripts') 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 ParkingEye Ltd v [your full name] Claim
no.: [claim number]."
[quote][center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
[right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
[center]BETWEEN:
ParkingEye Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant
[hr]
DEFENCE[/center]
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(1)(a).
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
[indent](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.[/indent]
4. The Defendant cites the cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44]
and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], which are persuasive
appellate decisions. In these cases, claims were struck out due
to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Transcripts
of these decisions are attached to this Defence.
5. 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.(1)(a). The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
[indent](i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses)
of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Failed to 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.[/indent]
6. 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(1)(a).
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:[/quote]
Draft Order for the defence
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zc23txk7poctyyxiv2ytx/Strikeout-order-1-a-v2.1.pdf?rlkey=pancly3z6zwqt2cra5rvvh3ls&st=nq7a58tz&dl=0
CEL v Chan Transcript
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nb9ypbecuurpmln00dily/CELvChan-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=7mpuvpmpe45s2zbhch21om1ez&st=i8dnbod3&dl=0
CPMS v Akande Transcript
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=qi4lv3fv&dl=0
If you want an editable MS Word file with everything in a single
document which you can then save/export as a single PDF file
when ready to send, use this:
MS Word .docx file for defence [CPR 16.4(1)(a)]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/krubcbnf27bsis66pq4yg/Short-defence-strikeout-CPR16.4-1-a-3.docx?rlkey=z87f3h8is3hgnp7sqr8plsz99&st=ldawlubu&dl=0
#Post#: 67233--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye (DCB) Money claim for PCN- Peterborough
By: Dino74 Date: April 15, 2025, 10:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks very much for the response. I assume that he NTK is the
first letter I got from them? I have attached this along with
the back page and also the ticket i got from the machine, you
cant see info on back without certian ligt and still i can not
make out the info - I have attached pictures that show what sort
of shine you can see on the ticket.
Would this defense need to be altered at all?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 67237--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye (DCB) Money claim for PCN- Peterborough
By: b789 Date: April 15, 2025, 10:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You have shown the reminder. It is the initial NtK that we would
need to see but I note from the reminder you've shown us that
the vehicle left the car park at 22:18. From what I can see in
the second image of the permit, the time 22:14 can be made out.
Was this a pay on exit car park?
#Post#: 67285--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye (DCB) Money claim for PCN- Peterborough
By: Dino74 Date: April 15, 2025, 3:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes pay on exit I believe
#Post#: 67333--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye (DCB) Money claim for PCN- Peterborough
By: b789 Date: April 16, 2025, 5:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You still have not shown the original NtK, but that can wait.
Keep your evidence, and try and get another photo of the permit
to see if you can get more detail, even if only very slightly
(as it can be enhanced), to show that your permit was indeed
purchased.
For now, all you can do is go through the process. If the claim
is not struck out or discontinued before any deadlines are
reached, you will be able to use all your evidence when you see
their Witness Statement (WS) should this ever get that far int
the process.
#Post#: 68056--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye (DCB) Money claim for PCN- Peterborough
By: Dino74 Date: April 22, 2025, 7:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for all the responses, The letter I have attached was
the first letter they received about the fine. It may have been
sent to the old address however it was never given to them.
Should we amend the defense to include specifics about why we do
not think we should pay for the fine? As it doesn't say in it
that the driver did pay for the parking session, that they have
supporting evidence, that there has been unreasonable delay in
pursuing the matter, and that any loss suffered by the parking
operator would, in any case, be nil or negligible.
Thanks very much in advance for another response
#Post#: 68057--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye (DCB) Money claim for PCN- Peterborough
By: b789 Date: April 22, 2025, 7:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What fine??? No one has been "fined"!!!
Just send the defence as advised.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page