CLAIM FORM DCB LEGAL/ VCR

Coupon-mad

Yes cc them in to your email to the CNBC.

kechai_2k

Coupon-mad said:

Yes cc them in to your email to the CNBC.

Thanks so much.

kechai_2k

Please why is DCB legal calling me few days after mediation. I saw 3 missed calls coming in as spam. I tried to call the number back but realised its dcb legal.

Coupon-mad

Because they want to bully you into settling.

We hope you didn't get drawn in by the Mediator and actually offered money?

kechai_2k

Coupon-mad said:

Because they want to bully you into settling.

We hope you didn't get drawn in by the Mediator and actually offered money?

Hmmm. No I did not. The mediator referred the case back to court.

Coupon-mad

Good.  I wondered if they were excited because you'd possibly offered money. Glad to hear not!

Clearly they are just bombarding defendants with calls regardless. Ignore! Or answer and record the call. Ask them a few questions. Act naive. We'd like to hear their rubbish. Seriously...could be useful.  Record the conversation on another phone but only AFTER you've given your name etc.

kechai_2k

Hi, So I have received the Hearing Notice of Allocation to the Small Claim Track to take place on 24th June, 2025. The Claimant was meant to pay the court trail fee of £27 by 4.00pm on the 23rd of May if not the claim will be struck off. As for dcbl call, I tried to answer their call severally but realised it is an automated call that will telll you thank you for calling DBCL and keep you on the line. I also received this email from them this week

" Re: Our Client: Vehicle Control Services Limited Claim Number:XXXXXXXX
WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

We write to you in relation to the above matter. To assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our Client may be prepared to settle this case. I can confirm our Client would be agreeable to £182.00 in full and final settlement of this Claim. The current outstanding balance is £259.08. Should you be agreeable to this offer, please make payment by no later than 29/04/2025. Payment can be made via our website www.dcblegal.co.uk, by calling our office on 0203 838 7038 or via bank transfer:　 DCB Legal Ltd Client Account　　 Sort Code: XXXXXXX　 Account no: XXXXXXXX　　
When making payment please ensure you include the following reference number, XXXXXXX, to enable us to allocate it to the correct case. Upon receipt of the settlement sum of £182.00 we will update the Court that the matter has been settled. If you are not agreeable, we will continue to follow the Court process as normal."

Gr1pr

Ignore them 

Ensure that you have your Witness Statement plus Exhibits bundle ready for emailing by the deadline on the court order,  usually a few weeks before the hearing date 

DCB Legal tend to discontinue near to the £27 fee payment date,  so will try to bully you between now and then 

kechai_2k

Please I have a question, The WS and the Evidence be together on a bundle or  separately? Am submitting today

kechai_2k

1. I (XXXX), of (XXXX), am the Defendant in this matter. I make this statement from my own knowledge and belief unless otherwise stated.

Fact and sequence of event

2. On 12 April 2024, I made a booking at Travelodge using my friend’s name, as she was due to arrive first and check in. We both planned to stay together that evening. When I arrived later, she had already left the hotel premises, so I went to meet her and returned to the hotel afterwards. I parked my vehicle in good faith at the Powis Street car park, having paid for 3 hours, and relied on information provided by Travelodge.
At no point was I made aware that there was an additional step of registering the vehicle registration number at the hotel reception. This requirement was not explained by Travelodge staff when I specifically contacted them, and I received verbal confirmation that parking should be fine.

No Breach Occurred

3. I strongly deny that I breached any contract. I paid for the parking duration up to 16:55 and I acted in accordance with the displayed terms.
I did not knowingly or negligently overstay. I made reasonable efforts to comply with the rules, and I was not made aware of the registration requirement for hotel guests. This omission is a failure on the part of the operator or hotel staff, not a breach on my part.

Appeal and Attempted Payment

4. Upon receiving the PCN, I wrote to Travelodge  and submitted an appeal on the Claimant’s website, explaining the situation. I received no reply.

5. I also attempted to pay the original £50 charge using my credit card. The transaction was rejected. My card provider later confirmed the rejection came from the payee’s side.

6. Despite my attempt to resolve the matter, the charge was escalated to DCB Legal, and the cost increased significantly. I continued corresponding in good faith, explaining my situation, but was met with inflexibility and no resolution.

Personal and Financial Hardship

7. I am a single mother of two young children, having recently left an abusive marriage. I have not been able to work for nearly two years due to my circumstances, and we live in a position of extreme financial difficulty. I have since sold my car out of necessity and am struggling to manage basic living expenses, including an outstanding water bill exceeding £1,000.

8. 
It is not that I do not wish to resolve this matter. I simply cannot afford to pay, especially given the unfair escalation and the original attempt I made to pay.

Unreasonable Conduct and Attempt to Resolve

9. After receiving letters from DCBL and the Claimant, I contacted both parties, explained the circumstances, my attempted payment, and my financial hardship. My correspondence was ignored.

10. Instead of resolving the matter, DCBL continued to send threatening and distressing letters, with no acknowledgment of my efforts to resolve the issue or of the failed payment. The matter was escalated unnecessarily to court, which I believe demonstrates unreasonable and aggressive conduct, particularly toward someone in a vulnerable position.

Exaggerated Claim and Market Failure Concerns

11. The alleged core debt could not have exceeded £100, in line with the applicable parking Code of Practice at the time. The additional fees claimed are inflated, unjustified, and not demonstrably incurred by the Claimant.

12. The Claimant has not provided a complete breakdown showing precisely how the enhanced total was calculated. The costs schedule lists individual components and adds a 20% uplift and VAT, but it lacks: Clear intermediary steps showing the math behind the enhancement, A rationale or legal basis for the 20% enhancement, Clear delineation between base costs, the enhancement, and VAT in a transparent stepwise total. I invite the court to require strict proof of:

the alleged contractual breach,

how the amount now claimed was derived, including interest calculations.

13. In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court emphasised that parking charges must be proportionate and clearly communicated. In this case, the signage failed to explain the requirement to register vehicle details at reception or the implications of not doing so.

14. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) published its Parking Code of Practice on 7 February 2022, highlighting systemic issues within the private parking sector, including:

“...a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists.”

15. The Government’s draft Impact Assessment (July 2023) revealed that the true cost of debt recovery is just £8.42 per case, not the £70+ routinely added. This suggests that the claim has been artificially inflated for profit and amounts to double recovery. 

Courts have previously criticised similar overcharges:

16. In ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB), HHJ Hegarty held that inflating a charge to £135 for ‘admin costs’ was excessive and penal in nature.

17. Her Honour Judge Jackson in the County Court also criticised this practice as unjustified and predatory.

18. The DLUHC explicitly describes the parking enforcement model as an example of “market failure”. This should prompt judicial scrutiny of excessive charges and aggressive litigation practices in cases like this one.

19. Finally, the claim exceeds the cap permitted under Schedule 4 Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as the sum sought is both disproportionate and not transparent.

20. I submit that the Claimant has incurred no additional costs resulting from the parking event. As held in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the full parking charge (post-discount) is intended to cover the entire operation, including administrative tasks and correspondence. In that case, the charge was £85 and deemed sufficient to cover 4–5 letters, including the pre-action phase.

21. The claim against me attempts to add further costs for purported “debt recovery,” despite the fact that these are part of a standard, automated letter-chain system, not genuine legal fees incurred. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) Impact Assessment published in July 2023 confirms that the real average cost of such pre-litigation activity is just £8.42 per case — far below the exaggerated £70 or more typically added per PCN.

22. Therefore, I contend that the Claimant’s claim is unjustly enriched and constitutes double recovery, which is both disproportionate and contrary to the will of Parliament and current Government review. No additional service was provided to justify this inflated sum.

Relevant Legal Authorities and Precedents

23. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163 – Established that contractual terms must be clearly communicated before or at the time of contracting. In this matter, the requirement to register a vehicle registration number at Travelodge reception was not clearly communicated.

24. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 – The enforceability of parking charges depends on the clarity and prominence of signage. The signage here failed to clearly communicate that vehicle registration at reception was a condition.

25. VCS v Ward (Birmingham CC, 2016) – The claim was dismissed due to unclear signage and the reasonable conduct of the motorist. Like in that case, I made every reasonable effort to comply and relied on staff information.

26. Excel Parking Services v Lamoureux (Skipton, 2016) – The court ruled in favour of the defendant where a good-faith attempt to pay and poor appeal handling were evident. This is highly relevant as I attempted payment and received no proper response to my appeal.

27. Civil Procedure Rules – Overriding Objective (CPR 1.1) – Requires fair treatment of all parties. Given my vulnerable position, I respectfully submit that the Claimant’s conduct was oppressive.

28. British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice – Operators are required to make signage clear and handle appeals fairly. The Claimant failed in both aspects.

Unreasonable Conduct and Request for Dismissal

29. I respectfully ask the Court to consider:
- That I did not intentionally breach any rules.
- That I acted in good faith and relied on information from hotel staff.
- That the signage was not sufficiently clear about the need to register the vehicle, especially for visitors, and this was not communicated by the hotel.
- That I attempted to resolve the matter early by both appealing and attempting to pay.
- That my financial circumstances make any penalty or cost severely unjust.

 

Conclusion

30. I ask the Court to dismiss the Claim entirely. In the alternative, I respectfully request that no costs or enforcement be awarded against me due to my personal hardship and the overall conduct of the Claimant and their agents.

31. The Defendant submits that the claim is entirely without merit and invites the Claimant to discontinue now to avoid further wasting the Court's time and incurring costs.

32. The Defendant respectfully refers the Court to the persuasive judgment of His Honour Judge Murch in Civil Enforcement v Chan (August 2023), where a similarly vague Particulars of Claim (PoC) led to strike out and full costs awarded to the motorist. Notably, the PoC in Chan included a brief reference to the alleged contravention (parking duration), whereas in this case, no such detail is offered at all.

33. There is now ample evidence to support the view — long held by many District Judges — that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. The July 2023 DLUHC Impact Assessment confirmed that the true cost of so-called "debt recovery" is approximately £8.42, far below the £70 typically added. This reinforces the conclusion that such claims are routinely inflated.

34. With the DLUHC’s proposed ban on false add-on costs, there is a compelling public interest in striking out claims like this. If inflated parking charges are only disallowed at hearing stage in the small fraction of contested cases, then hundreds of thousands of consumers will continue to suffer harm — either paying inflated sums or receiving County Court Judgments in fear of enforcement threats.

35. In light of the above, the Defendant asks the Court:

36. (a) to award standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

37. (b) to consider the Claimant’s conduct unreasonable, and to award further costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and CPR 46.5.

38. Finally, the Court’s attention is drawn to the common tactic in this sector of filing a late Notice of Discontinuance. While CPR 38.6 normally disapplies costs in small claims (CPR 38.6(3)), the White Book notes at annotation 38.6.1 that where a party has acted unreasonably, costs may still be awarded (see CPR 27.14(2)(g)).

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.