DCB Legal Claim defence

Just_Cruising

Have received a General Form of Judgement or Order telling me to deliver my written statements to Kingston Hearing Centre by the 14th May. There is no email address given, do I have to send everything by post?

PilotJames

Probably this one....

Enquiries.kingston.countycourt@justice.gov.uk

But email that address to check first.

Gr1pr

Always check the court website 

https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/kingston-upon-thames-county-court-and-family-court

Just_Cruising

Gulp. Was waiting for DCB Legal's witness statement, but it's now quite close to the submission date (14th May). I have checked via the email address provided and they have confirmed they can accept electronic documents. Here's my Witness Statement. Sorry for not being more timely.

Name of Witness: 

Witness Statement No.: One

                                                                                         

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT KINGSTON – UPON – THAMES

 

Claim No.: XXXXX

 

Between

EURO CAR PARKS LIMITED (Claimant)

V

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

________

WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

                                  

 

I, XXXXXXX, of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX will say as follows:

 

INTRODUCTION

I make this Witness Statement (hereinafter referred to as WS) in readiness for the hearing listed on the first available date after 25th June 2025 at Kingston-upon-thames County Court and in support of my Defence against the Claimant’s claim.

 

FACTS AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.

1.     I have in the past used the parking facility at Priory Retail Park – Colliers Wood to attend the retail outlets there. There is a large home furnishings store, a large Currys store, other shops and places to eat. This is a popular retail outlet and car parking places can often take some time to find.

2.     Date and Time of the Incident: It is admitted that on the material dates, I was the registered keeper of the vehicle.

3.     On the dates in question (several years ago), the claimant’s records show my vehicle entering and exiting the car park in under 3 hours. 

4.     My experience of shopping with my partner and our autistic daughter (who is now 7 years old but was 3 and 5 years old respectively at the time of the incidents) is that this is not an unreasonable time to spend in these establishments, particularly with a new home to furnish.

5.     I will now make reference to Exhibits 1 and 2. Which are images of the retail park entrance, where there are no mention of parking charges.

6.     The claimant’s proof of claim states that we breached the terms on the signs.

7.     Exhibit 3 shows an image of the parking signs that show the retail park is for customers only, which we were. Any mention of the duration or charges must have been hidden in the small print.

8.     Exhibit 4 shows a contrasting image from a case (ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ['the Beavis case'] found in favour of the parking owner. The duration and charges are very clear.

9.     I contend that I did not breach the terms of the agreement, being unaware that I had entered into a contract as I was a customer of the facilities.

 

EXAGGERATED CLAIMS AND 'MARKET FAILURE' ARE CURRENTLY EXAMINED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

10. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine.

11. I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is to put strict proof of:

(i) The alleged breach, and

(ii) A breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced amount claimed, including how interest has been calculated, which appears to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was immediately overdue on the day of an alleged parking event.

12. This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out-of-control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, the position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

13. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022, here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

 

14. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fi le/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

 

15. As of April 2025, that figure has now risen over 12%. Private parking companies in the UK are issuing an average of over 41,000 parking charge notices (PCNs) per day, according to government data analysed by the RAC Foundation, as seen in a publication on the Guardian newspaper https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/apr/22/parking-firms-issuing-thousands-of-fines-in-england-due-to-faulty-ticket-machines?utm_source=chatgpt.com

This marks a significant increase from the approximately 22,000 daily tickets reported in early 2022. The surge has raised concerns about the practices of private parking firms, including the use of confusing signage, aggressive enforcement, and the imposition of high fees. Despite the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) publishing a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022, its implementation has been delayed due to legal challenges from the parking industry.​

16. In the first half of the 2024/25 financial year alone, there were 7.2 million such requests made by private parking firms to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) for vehicle keeper details, indicating a substantial rise in enforcement activities by these companies.

17. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

18. With that sum in mind, the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives' fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found, including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit, to constitute 'double recovery' and I take that position.

19. The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

20. In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case')  in Exhibit 5. Also, ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB), where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal.

Just_Cruising

21. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge (after expiry of discount) is already high and more than covers what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' business model that generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 or 5 letters in total, including pre-action phase reminders. The £85 parking charge was held to cover the 'costs of the operation' and the DLUHC's IA suggests it should still be the case that the parking charge itself more than covers the minor costs of the pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges.

 

22. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, the majority of the clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry, and it stands to become a creature of statute due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes. The DLUHC's Secretary of State mentions they are addressing 'market failure' more than once in the draft IA, a phrase which should be a clear steer for Courts in 2023 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.

 

23. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA'), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable. It is also disproportionate and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA). CRA Breaches

 

24. Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the CRA, which introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of signage, and all notices, letters, and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.

 

25. Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well-placed (and lit in hours of darkness/dusk), and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

 

26. The CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).

 

27. Now, for the first time, the DLUHC's draft IA exposes that template's debt chaser' stage costs less than £9. This shows that HHJ Jackson was right all along in Excel v Wilkinson. (See Exhibit 10) The Beavis case is against this claim

 

28. The Supreme Court clarified that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in parking cases, which must be determined on their own facts. That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test, given the location and clear signs with the charges in the largest/boldest text. Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, that case, particularly the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs (See Exhibit 11), set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

 

29. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations, nor 'concealed pitfalls or traps'. (See Exhibit 12) for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).

 

30. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. There is one main issue that renders this parking charge to be purely penal (i.e., no legitimate interest saves it) and thus, it is unenforceable:

(i) Hidden Terms: The £100 penalty clause is positively buried in small print, as seen on the signs in evidence. The purported added (false) 'costs' are even more hidden and are also unspecified as a sum. Their (unlawful, due to the CRA Schedule 2 grey list of unfair terms) suggestion is that they can hide a vague sentence within a wordy sign, in the smallest possible print, then add whatever their trade body lets them, until the DLUHC bans it in 2024. And the driver has no idea about any risk, nor even how much they might layer on top. Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a charge, include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (‘red hand rule’) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2, both leading authorities confirming that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because

 

it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space". Conclusion

 

31. In conclusion, the claimant has failed to provide clear evidence that a contract was formed, nor has it shown that the parking charge notices were validly issued. The lack of adequate signage and the unlawful nature of the additional charges further invalidate the claimant’s claim. The claimant’s attempt to impose liability for these inflated charges is unsupported by both statutory law and leading case precedents. I ask the court to dismiss the claim and award appropriate costs for the time and effort expended in defending against these unjust claims.

 

32. I ask the judge to read the persuasive Judgment from His Honour Judge Murch (August 2023) in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, and deliver the same outcome given that this Claimant has submitted a similarly vague POC. It is worth noting that in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, the POC, while still ambiguous, did contain a subtle indication of the alleged contravention, specifically regarding the duration of the parking on the premises. In contrast, the POC in this case lacks even a minimal effort to hint at the nature of the alleged violation. In the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist, and the claim was struck out.

 

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 IA analysis surely makes that clear because it is now a matter of record that the industry has told the Government that 'debt recovery' costs eight times less than they have been claiming in almost every case.

 

34. With the DLUHC's impending ban on the false 'costs', there is ample evidence to support the view, long held by many District Judges, that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of the intimidating pre-action demands. I believe that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale.

 

35. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)), this does not normally apply to claims allocated 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))."

 

COSTS ASSESSMENT

 

Given the significant time and effort required to defend this unjust claim, I respectfully request that the court consider awarding costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g). I have spent considerable time researching, preparing this statement, and attending the hearing. My estimated costs for this are as follows:

 

• Research and preparation of witness statement (10 Hours): £122.1

• Travel expenses (Taxi to and from): £50

Totalling: £172.1

I request that the court consider these costs in its judgment, given the claimant's unreasonable behaviour in pursuing this claim without merit.

 

 

 

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, 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: ________________

 

Name: xxxxxxxx

 

Dated: [insert date of signing]

Coupon-mad

Don't repeat the template defence if you used it. Are you sure the NoD isn't in your junk emails?

Just_Cruising

I have checked and the only thing I've received from DCB Legal is an offer to settle at £350 (which I've ignored).

Just_Cruising

I have used the template defence, but wasn't sure if I needed it all in my Witness Statement too. Thanks for confirming.

1505grandad

"9.     I contend that I did not breach the terms of the agreement, being unaware that I had entered into a contract as I was a customer of the facilities."

At the beginning of your WS you state   -  "........and in support of my Defence against the Claimant’s claim."

However in your Defence doc signed under a SoT you seem to state:-
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81097679/#Comment_81097679

" Para 3 is denied because the Defendant was not the driver."

Just_Cruising

Fair point 1505grandad. My partner and I share the car, so I don't actually know who was driving on these occasions and should have said as much.