GBP Management DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

poshMosh

Bang on Coupon-mad, windscreen ticket only, no NTK (only just the windscreen ticket and 6-7 collection letters), driver not identified, no POPLA code.

Appeal sent on the 29/04/2024. - Response to the appeal below on the 08/05/2024:

Good afternoon,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Please be advised, if driver details are not provided due to PoFA 2012.

 

The Keeper will remain liable for the charge.

 

Please also note, we have not sent any direct contact to the keeper of the vehicle at this time, our client has only placed a ticket on the vehicle on the day of the contravention.

 

Please provide driver details within seven days.

 

Kind regards,

Coupon-mad

poshMosh said:

Here is the Ticket:

poshMosh said:

Hi All, 

So I've the following response from the company in question and wanted your help to draft a response to it. I've had a search on the forum where they are advising the PoFA 2012 means keep is liable? Your help on this is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Good afternoon,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Please be advised, if driver details are not provided due to PoFA 2012.

 

The Keeper will remain liable for the charge.

 

Please also note, we have not sent any direct contact to the keeper of the vehicle at this time, our client has only placed a ticket on the vehicle on the day of the contravention.

 

Please provide driver details within seven days..

This is hilarious - but they are LYING about the POFA. They can't hold a keeper liable if they didn't send a Notice to Keeper.

My goodness this is basic stuff for any PPC! But who did this come from as it says 'our client' so it must be a DRA acting as a third party (incompetent, lying) admin. 

poshMosh

Client seems to be GBP Management (via www.paymyparkingcharge.com)

Just filling out the AOS link and wanted to clarify a few things:

1. I intend to defend all parts of claim - seems the right option
2. You can choose to contest jurisdiction of the claim made against you.

I intend to contest jurisdiction - Not sure if this applies to me?

Coupon-mad

1. DEFEND IN FULL.

2.  No.

This is already covered in the Dropbox link in the NEWBIES thread, showing AOS step by step.

Make sure you state in your defence facts section, that the Claimant's agent ZZPS lied in writing about keeper liability when the keeper disputed the matter, despite ZZPS admitting that they hadn't bothered to serve any Notice to Keeper (at all). Which makes POFA compliance impossible to argue, yet DCB Legal's POC has completely misled the Court on that. 

Coupon-mad

And once you've done the defence (and the Public Consultation by Friday) I encourage you to do online complaint/reports about DCB Legal's blatant misleading of defendants and the courts (about the POFA), to:

- the SRA (Solicitors Regulatory Authority) for alleged systemic breach of their professional standards;

- the CSA (Credit Services Association) for alleged systemic breach of their standards for fair and not misleading debt recovery letters;

- the CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) for alleged systemic breach of the Joint Code and therefore, the DMCC Act 2024;

All three complaints triggered by two things:

1. the 'misleading action' of using boilerplate POFA worded Particulars of Claim which blatantly lies to recipient Defendants about 'keeper liability' under a law that their client failed to comply with. Even a smidgen of due diligence would show a professional law firm that there was no NTK ever issued and this was admitted by the agents. It is a 'misleading action' to say in the Claim that the client can pursue the Defendant under the POFA 2012.

and

2. the misleading action of (if they still are...?) sending LBC demands on DCB Legal headed notepaper which carries the blue strap-line "Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away!" which is vexatious and wholly unreasonable for this law firm to use  (DCB Legal are not bailiffs). That appalling fly on the wall TV show features DCB Ltd not DCB Legal and only cases at a stage after obtaining judgment and HCEO writ. These Limited companies are two different legal entities and the LBC was sent at PRE action stage when there was no possibility of them - or any firm in DCB 'Group' - removing goods.

IMHO: These two points must be investigated as a possible breach of standards for a solicitor, surely?

poshMosh

Hey - here's my Defence statement. Worth noting that ticket was issued due to "No Valid Permit", let me know your thoughts:

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 Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the
allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability
for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the
Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract,
there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable
consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the keeper
breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
(‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the
test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for
prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and
paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of
fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this
Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the
limited information available, this case appears to be no
different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with
contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right
to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided.
However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its
powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is
not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant
does not accept that a contravention occurred on 04/04/2024, as
alleged. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The
quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land)
and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

3.1 The Defendant has little or no knowledge or recollection of events on the date stated. The vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper. An appeal was lodged and was refused whilst also admitting they did not send a Notice to Keeper and thus the keeper is not liable.

4. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of
prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to
strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract
and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management
service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules
and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an
unverified Google Maps mock-up).

5. In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that
the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong
'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss,
and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of
the charge itself. None of these requirements have been
demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v
Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to
paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v
Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding
unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision
was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs'
further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to
£135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters
and 'would appear to be penal'.

6. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of
Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The
Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust
enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents
(DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last
Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from
motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the
added sums are not part of the parking related charges: 'profit
being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits
reported 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'.
public consultation =
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-o
f-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

7. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum
parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant
to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it
also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes
to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 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)).’
Schedule4 = https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4

8. The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice
compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest
(the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be
disallowed).

9. The delay in litigation has made retrieving material
documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly
prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR
27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant,
opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

10. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk
parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance.
Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after
discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to the
small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states
(annotation 38.6.1):'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)(dg))'.

Final (silly) question, where do I complete the public consultation?

Thanks again!

Umkomaas

Final (silly) question, where do I complete the public consultation?

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

Fill out where you can. Time is now very much of the essence (deadline - close of business this Friday 05/09/25). Something is better than nothing. I doubt there will be another chance to bring this monster under control. We can't let this slip through our fingers. Every little helps. 

Coupon-mad

Don't change driver to keeper in the sentence you did. It is only the driver who could have allegedly breached a term.

Re the defence, use the Template Defence 'as is' then you need some facts to respond to the allegation as your para 3. At the moment it looks like para 2 isn't the Template version?

1505grandad

"Client seems to be GBP Management (via www.paymyparkingcharge.com)"

@Coupon-mad -  is the following still applicable but change name of claimant?;_

"Despite tens of thousands of boilerplate claims from DCB Legal causing inflated default CCJs this year - as they have reportedly filed a 'job lot' of template bulk claims for this Claimant, all repeating the untruth about the POFA 2012 - Smart Parking has no cause of action against any registered keeper.

Coupon-mad

Ah good spot! Didn't notice: this one is a bit different as it's not Smart but GBP, who never issued a NTK (at all).

So re the defence, use the Template Defence 'as is' then you need some facts to respond to the allegation as your para 3, then this as para 4:

4. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 4, the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly or negligently misleading the court by citing the POFA. Even a smidgen of due diligence would show a professional law firm that there was no NTK ever issued and this was admitted by the Claimant's back office notice processing agents. It is a 'misleading action' to say in the Claim that the client can pursue the Defendant under the POFA 2012.

... then renumber the Template Defence, so it ends up with 11 paragraphs.