Help - Anything i need to add/remove to defence?

Le_Kirk

judo077 said:

Ok - So i I filed my defence via email and got an automated response. DCBlegal have just tried to call me and left a voicemail. What are the next stages? Do i start coversing conversing with them?

They will only want to try to get you to settle for a sum that they say is a reduction but won't be and you will not have a record of what, if anything is agreed.  A phone call is worth the paper it is printed on.

Coupon-mad

The next steps are within the 12 steps in the first post of the Template Defence thread.

B789

judo077 said:

Ok - So i filed my defence via email and got an automated response. DCBlegal have just tried to call me and left a voicemail. What are the next stages? Do i start coversing with them?

Absolutely NOT!!! They probably want to make an offer for you to pay a reduced amount which really means that they know they have no case and will shortly discontinue the Claim.

Have a read of this thread to see the pattern of their behaviour:

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

judo077

After receiving some great advice and previously on here and your assistance helping me to get my last ticket wiped i am back again, this time slightly different but almost the same. 

I received a letter, already at the stage where it was DCB Legal for coming after me for £262 for a parking charge from February. No further info on what was breached or anything. I followed everything step by step again, filing my AoS, providing them with my defence etc. I have now received an email to say they intend to proceed and i will be sent a directions questionnaire. This didn't happen with my previous one, so just wanting some advice again on how this all works. It is from CP Plus Ltd T/A GroupNexus. My defence was as follows: 

Defence

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not
comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts
necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of
action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery
of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not
monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim
also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC')
maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason
for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the
right to amend the defence if details of the contract are
provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its
powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is
denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest
should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with
the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material
documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The
Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of
unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant
has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to
admit that they were the registered keeper.

3. With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive
appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref.
E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref.
K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil
Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On
the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the
particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the
conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the
claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'.
The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the
Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers
pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment
also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail
to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ
Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts
upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim.'

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but
to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and
valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights
Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and
sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'.
Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the
duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that
this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On
the limited information given, this case looks no different. The
Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written
landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict
proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of
the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates,
schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not
an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a
strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for
loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any
relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This
PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or
trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully
distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis
(an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and
generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the
binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC
4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only
parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in
paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin
costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135
were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated
letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by
operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government
recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring
in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting
money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit
being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking
operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms
having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that
there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable:
see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim
against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid
parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the
driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not
specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They
are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely)
event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is
no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an
indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a
third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that
has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases
is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs
(r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small
claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note
that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a
case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of
discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be
awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(g))

I appreciate any response i receive. 

Car1980

I have now received an email to say they intend to proceed and i will be sent a directions questionnaire. 

You might have missed the email because they've always sent it. 

Nothing has changed and this is heading for discontinuance as usual.

Look out for the Directions Questionnaire and keep an eye on MCOL.

Coupon-mad

Might be correct to cite Chan and Akande if the POC doesn't specify the breach. Show us the POC and was it signed by a solicitor called Croote?

1505grandad

"After receiving some great advice and previously on here and your assistance helping me to get my last ticket wiped i am back again, this time slightly different but almost the same. "

Suggestion  -  as this is a 2023 thread with no statement from the OP regarding how the claim was "wiped" perhaps there should be a new thread for this new claim.

It would also help if the OP would let the forum know how this 2023 claim was concluded.