DCB Legal - Claim for parking without paying (TOTAL CAR PARKS + DCB LEGAL COURT CLAIM SUCCESS!!)

mistake140

Thank you all for your help so far - let me know if you have any advice for what to add or remove, and I'll send it off ASAP!

Gr1pr

You end a WS with an e signed statement of truth,  which is not on the draft you posted earlier 

Coupon-mad

mistake140 said:

Thank you all for your help so far - let me know if you have any advice for what to add or remove, and I'll send it off ASAP!

Remove the bit about the witness not having knowledge. Instead, save an observation in your head for the hearing to say to the judge that "the witness has not attended today, therefore their statement is hearsay".

Change your sentence that says you left "under the assumption they would not pursue" to instead say you left having been prevented from being able to comply, therefore there was no agreed contract because it had proved impossible to perform.

And remove paras 16-21 (the DLUHC stuff is old news and was probably in your defence and instead add this, with appropriate paragraph numbers:

- The Supreme Court considered the application of the rule against penalties in precisely this situation in the leading case of  ParkingEye Limited v Beavis ([2015] UKSC67):

The true test [of whether a term is a penalty] is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation (per Lords Neuberger and Sumption at paragraph 32).

- The Supreme Court held that the £85 parking charge in Beavis was a secondary obligation that engaged the penalty rule but was saved by the special circumstance of the parking arrangements in that case.

[T]he £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars. This was to be achieved by deterring commuters or other long-stay motorists from occupying parking spaces for long periods or engaging in other inconsiderate parking practices, thereby reducing the space available to other members of the public, in particular the customers of the retail outlets. The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable Parking Eye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services, without which those services would not be available. (Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption at paragraph 98).

In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss.

The scheme in operation here (and in many similar car parks) is that the landowner authorises ParkingEye to control access to the car park and to impose the agreed charges, with a view to managing the car park in the interests of the retail outlets, their customers and the public at large. That is an interest of the landowners because (i) they receive a fee from ParkingEye for the right to operate the scheme, and (ii) they lease sites on the retail park to various retailers, for whom the availability of customer parking was a valuable facility. It is an interest of ParkingEye, because it sells its services as the managers of such schemes and meets the costs of doing so from charges for breach of the terms (and if the scheme was run directly by the landowners, the analysis would be no different). As we have pointed out, deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract. (ibid at paragraph 99)

- Those purposes are not served by the secondary term in this case. The Claimant charges motorists for parking at this car park, from which it receives an income stream. There is no purpose of deterring motorists from occupying parking spaces for long periods.  On the contrary, the legitimate commercial interests of the operator are served by encouraging motorists to stay, and pay, for long periods. In short, the Beavis exception cannot apply to failure to pay the tariff in a pay-to-park car park and with the added point that the Claimant's own system made the contract void for impossibility, the secondary obligation in the present case is, therefore, a penalty and unenforceable.

mistake140

Gr1pr said:

You end a WS with an e signed statement of truth,  which is not on the draft you posted earlier 

Ahh I have one written, I just hadn't pasted it to save having you all sift through it, but on second thought I should have

@Coupon-mad thank you so much, I've now added that to the witness statement. 

Unfortunately I tried to get my call logs and text logs but my network only keeps these logs for 6 months at a time, and I've had a new phone in that time, so I'll only have two exhibits. 

I'll add these to my document and submit them today - thank you all!

mistake140

UPDATE: Went to small claims court and I am pleased to say I WON!

The Judge found it unreasonable for the claimant to demand "payment in advance" for parking when you are allowed to park for 2 hours for free, but any extra parking will cost £1 per hour. Their witness statement linked two signs, one which said payment must be made before parking, and one that also said first two hours free. Therefore, it was completely reasonable for me to get caught up in a situation where there is an overstay which I attempt to pay for only after parking.

The solicitor for the claimant said that you must pay before parking no excuses, but I mentioned that I have once previously overstayed when intending to only be there for under 2 hours, and was able to pay via texting the correct number and no action was taken. 

Case Reference: L6KF7M6F
Held at: Milton Keynes County Court and Family Court
Date: 04/July/2025

Judge ordered claimant to pay my costs of half a day of pay, which was half of the £95 limit per day so £47.50 plus some small change for 3 ish miles of travel there.

Hope this helps someone and if theres any other useful info I can provide let me know so I can send it through.
One case over... time to worry about the others 

Car1980

Must be a blue moon as it's extremely rare for a company to pay DCB Legal to go all the way to a hearing. Total Car Parks is one to memorise on that score.

Gr1pr

Well done,   TCP and DCB LEGAL got a lesson there in not discontinuing early doors  !

Another one bites the dust   !

May I suggest that you edit your thread title to something more suitable like 

TCP , DCB LEGAL COURT CLAIM SUCCESS 2025

Coupon-mad

mistake140 said:

UPDATE: Went to small claims court and I am pleased to say I WON!

The Judge found it unreasonable for the claimant to demand "payment in advance" for parking when you are allowed to park for 2 hours for free, but any extra parking will cost £1 per hour. Their witness statement linked two signs, one which said payment must be made before parking, and one that also said first two hours free. Therefore, it was completely reasonable for me to get caught up in a situation where there is an overstay which I attempt to pay for only after parking.

The solicitor for the claimant said that you must pay before parking no excuses, but I mentioned that I have once previously overstayed when intending to only be there for under 2 hours, and was able to pay via texting the correct number and no action was taken. 

Case Reference: L6KF7M6F
Held at: Milton Keynes County Court and Family Court
Date: 04/July/2025

Judge ordered claimant to pay my costs of half a day of pay, which was half of the £95 limit per day so £47.50 plus some small change for 3 ish miles of travel there.

Hope this helps someone and if theres any other useful info I can provide let me know so I can send it through.
One case over... time to worry about the others 

Yay, well done!

Seems the judge decided it was an unfair term - a 'concealed pitfall or trap' as the Supreme Court called it - that was impossible for you to perform.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

If you want to make a difference to stop this utter scammery in future:

Stick around in August to take part in the Government's Public Consultation. We have an important thread about that and we need ALL Defendants to respond to the questions to shape the regulation of this rogue industry.

Please come back in a couple of weeks. Bookmark the thread on the Public Consultation. Go read it now, please.

mistake140

Car1980 said:

Must be a blue moon as it's extremely rare for a company to pay DCB Legal to go all the way to a hearing. Total Car Parks is one to memorise on that score.

Ah mate I wish, looks like I've currently got two other ones to deal with both from DCB Legal🤦🏻‍♂️

Car1980

Same parking co or different?