C.U.P Enforcement - 'Parking' in a 'No parking area' - Draft of defence

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 16/09/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 21/09/25 and before 05/10/25

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 20/10/25

Vikom04

@Umkomaas See here:






@kryten3000 - Yes please, I would appreciate the help to make sure this is robust. I've got the Template Defence from the pinned thread, and fleshing out a concise para 3.

The key points, I feel, are;

-  Parking within a no parking area; Within the PCN, they refer to this area as a ‘car park’, However, within the same PCN, they also declare this area a ‘no parking area’. so no parking facilities available for any motorist to use, and as such no contract with regards to the use of parking facilities, can be entered into. If it is a ‘no parking area’, then there is no parking contract on offer meaning it fails the contractual basic test (No Offer, No Consideration resulting in No Contract) as the driver cannot contract to do that which is forbidden. How can the driver break a parking contract on offer, when no parking could have taken place?

- Misuse of public highway double yellow lines to add credence to a private piece of land (a layby) off a public highway, which is being treated as though it were a fully fledged parking area i.e with entrance signs (which it doesn't have - there are 3 signs affixed to the wall). 

-This is clearly a case of entrapment with covert surveillance from cameras on buildings, with the Operator (claimant) using it's generic nature as a layby to their advantage, as there is no clear delineation between the public highway and the private land (i.e. coloured markings on the floor, signs on poles around the area etc), which appears purposeful, as any motorist will take advantage of a layby off a public highway if they are briefly pulling over.

- The area is being incorrectly treated (by the Claimant and POPLA) as a no stopping zone (i.e. double reds), rather than a no parking area, in an attempt force litigation, as 'ZERO' consideration period is impossible in a contract law situation. 

- There is no consideration period given for a driver to read, and reject, the supposed contract as a driver does not have to (and cannot possibly) read contractual signs whilst driving. In this case, the time stamped photos show the driver leaving within 2 minutes, which cannot possibly be a parking event, as defined by the high courts. 

- Generic signage, not specific to the location, put forward as evidence 

1505grandad

Is there a signature for the claimant on reverse?

Coupon-mad

1505grandad said:

Is there a signature for the claimant on reverse?

Yes there is. We know it's Sarah Ensall.

The OP just needs to read the Mazur thread. 

Vikom04

Coupon-mad said:

1505grandad said:

Is there a signature for the claimant on reverse?

Yes there is. We know it's Sarah Ensall.

The OP just needs to read the Mazur thread. 

You're absolutely right, I completely missed that. Things have changed since the last time I went through this process! It used to be on the PoC

@Coupon-mad - I'll read that thread now

Vikom04

Coupon-mad said:

1505grandad said:

Is there a signature for the claimant on reverse?

Yes there is. We know it's Sarah Ensall.

The OP just needs to read the Mazur thread. 

Wow, holy Sh*t, what a bombshell. That was a rollercoaster of a read; I've spent the last hour and a half catching up on this and reading the latest judgement.

I hope to God that an appeal is not allowed to this judgement, these mass-litigation parking firms, otherwise known as scum-sucking protoplasmic invertebrate jellies (© BoJo) need to be put out to pasture and held to account. It's incredible that the individual and the firm are both equally liable (in the case of unqualified staff conducting litigation) and committing a criminal offence!

Coupon-mad

Great grenade, isn't it?! Exciting times.

Looks like everyone should be reporting DCB Legal to the SRA to ask them to investigate with a view to shutting them down because well over 100,000 template claims are made annually, all signed by Sarah Ensall (and all Smart Parking ones also lie about keeper liability).

magjp90

Vikom04 said:

Hi all,

I've stocked up on the standard DCBL & DCB Legal letters that came over the past months, to use as kindling for the fire in winter.

I've acknowledged the Claim form on MCOL today, with an Issue date of 16th Sept. (N.B it arrived by post on Wednesday this week).

Attached are the POC's for your perusal; is there anything in particular that stands out in there? I thought they had to be signed by someone?

@magjp90 - Our defences / Witness Statement will be virtually identical so we should collaborate together on this.

The site is clearly a honey trap, but I'm unsure about the legalities around it. As I understand, some others on this forum have actually had this taken to the claims court, and the case was dismissed by the judge very quickly.

Although, when I saw it was DCB Legal, I cackled out loud as it is likely to end up as another discontinuation statistic!

I'm happy to collaborate together. To be honest with you, this is all alien to me, it's my first ever parking charge! I've written to Sainsbury's as well, but they said it's outside of their jurisdiction and can't act, which is fair enough I guess, but was worth a try. I think it'll be worthwhile writing to the Watford MP as well, as it seems to be catching a lot of motorists out recently and that's only the ones we see coming on here for advice! 

Vikom04

Hi all,

V1 of the Defence taking some of the latest points. The stuff in bold italics is what I have added/edited. I would be very grateful of robust critique.

Question 1) Is it worth mentioning somewhere in paras 9-12, the fact it is implausible that their authorised solicitors on the books, could submit the 100,000+ MCOL claims per year? Any unauthorised staff filling out MCOL and submitting it, with the statement of truth in the solicitors name, is conducting litigation which is is not possible (and actually criminal conduct) and can not be "supervised" since the Mazur ruling.

Question 2) I have read of people having their defences struck out due to the court/judge deeming it to be (ironically), a submission of boilerplate text. Is it worth including something about being a litigant in person, and the scope of these activities fall outside of my usual expertise, so help and guidance has been sought through what is available publicly? 

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 recalls the events as set out below and admits they are the registered keeper and driver.

3. Having followed the internal appeals process and POPLA, it is clear the claimant is relying on a fundamental misrepresentation of the area they manage and a misunderstanding of what constitutes a breech of ‘parking contract’. In this case, the “area” is a small layby (approx.14 metres in length and circa 2 metres wide) off a public highway, which is deliberately not delineated as private land. There is no specific ‘entrance’ to this area and the signage affixed to the wall states “No parking at all times”. For any contract to be breeched, a motorist would have to park their car. Parking has been defined in the persuasive appeal in Jopson v Homeguard as “the concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading… Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it”. In this case, it is abundantly clear the driver was not parked; the footage supplied by C.U.P clearly confirms this, as it shows the vehicle pulled over, with hazard warning lights on, for 1 minute and 36 seconds. The area is deemed a ‘no parking area’; therefore, no parking facilities are on offer so it is not a place that can offer a contract to park, nor one to breech. Furthermore, if the claimant is admitting this area is indeed a “car park” (which is the terminology they use to describe this area in all correspondence), then it is imperative that certain stipulations apply, as per the BPA Code of Practice to which they are bound. Any motorist entering this area must be afforded a consideration period to read, understand and accept/reject any contract on offer. In this case, the driver chose to reject any contract on offer and left the site within 2 minutes, during which time they were not parked nor did they leave the vehicle. The claimant is incorrectly treating this area as a no-stopping zone, in order to issue speculative parking charges, because it is impossible to read contractual signs whilst driving and within a contract law situation, a zero consideration period is not possible.

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. What has been supplied so far is a rough scrawling of the “site” and an agreement that has not been signed, but put together from MS Word or similar.

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.  The recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) underlines the importance of ensuring litigation is carried out by qualified and authorised professionals. In this case, the POC signatory does not appear to be on the SRA list for DCB Legal and the staff drawing up legal documents and attending Court Mediation to negotiate settlements are believed to be paralegals. Even if acting under supervision, this new authority holds that unauthorised staff cannot conduct litigation.

10. That is before even considering the doctrine of champerty in private parking cases, where some of these 'debt recovery' law firms are known to advertise that they 'front' court fees to fuel bulk litigation for commercial profit only when a sum is recovered. If this is the model used here - and the Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary - paying £ hundreds of thousands in court fees per annum and maintaining boilerplate parking claims with no sign of client (or authorised solicitor) involvement in the cases litigated looks to be contrary to public policy, as well as in breach of DVLA KADOE rules where the parking operator must be the data controller throughout. The arrangement would be unenforceable as a result. The High Court recently handed down an important reminder that, notwithstanding the changing nature of public policy, the rules against champerty and maintenance remain. See also Farrar & Anor v Miller [2022] EWCA Civ 295

11.  With or without a physical Deed of Assignment, claimants cannot assign a bare cause of action and solicitor firms must not engage in arrangements that give them a purely commercial interest in their clients' litigation. This law firm is believed to act on a bulk data exchange 'no-win-no-fee' basis. In view of that and the landmark Speechlys case (where submissions from both the SRA and Law Society were sought and the High Court held that 'supervision' by a solicitor is not sufficient) this parking firm Claimant - NOT the law firm - is put to strict proof that they are involved in all their cases, that their agents' conduct is lawful and that the staff are authorised to conduct litigation. Whilst contingency fee arrangements are not illegal per se, in order to uphold the integrity of the solicitor-client relationship and the role of solicitors as officers of the court, this sort of bulk litigation can and should be disallowed, particularly when the court service is overwhelmed and this industry has been identified by the last two Governments as in 'market failure' (super-profiteering is suggested by the MHCLG in the Summer 2025 Consultation).

12. The court is invited to strike out the claim and grant the Defendant's costs on the indemnity basis due to wholly unreasonable conduct. Although costs do not usually apply in the small claims track (r.38.6(3)), the White Book notes they may be awarded for unreasonable conduct (r.27.14(2)(dg)) including in cases of late discontinuance, if that now occurs.

@magjp90 & @kryten3000 - To compare with your statements 


As ever, thank you all for your expertise. 

kryten3000

it's too much detail at this stage.  Try this instead:

3. This location is poorly signposted and appears to form part of the adopted road "Gaumont Approach".  Any contravention on the public highway should be enforced by a Traffic Warden or Civil Enforcement Officer, not this Claimant.  The Claimant's signage is "forbidding" and unable to form any contract with the driver.