UK Parking Control - DCB Legal - Received Claim Form

halsam

Hey Everyone

Defendant received a Civil National Business Centre Claim Form randomly out of the blue a few days ago - UK Parking Control - DCB Legal.

PCN issued 24/07/2021  - defendant vaguely remembers it and the day - old retail carpark on a Sunday, empty, defendant driving, defendants car, had no idea there were parking restrictions, overstayed limit and to the defendants surprise, received a PCN in the post (defendant thinks?). Ignored all of it, sold car, moved house.. ignored 1 or 2 DCB Legal letters thereafter.

Fast forward 2 years, defendant forgets about the whole thing.. thought they realised they cant make a case because of the bad signage.. only to come home to a random claim form through the post with no LBC previously sent.

Total amount - £303.52.
£170 being total PCN and damages, £35 court fee, £50 legal fee plus interest etc.

After reading the forum it looks like the defendant should use the MCOL system to acknowledge the claim which they can do next week. Then has 1 month to submit a defense by email attachment to CCBC.

In preparation there is already a drafted email defense reading exactly as follows:




"""
*************************************************************************************************************
DEFENSE

Claim No.:  

Between: UK Parking Control Limited (Claimant) 

And:  (Defendant) 

 

Introduction 

1. The Defendant denies that they are liable for the claim. The Defendant asserts that the claim is unfounded and inflated, as detailed below. 

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle on the material date, but liability is denied. 

 

Preliminary Matters 

1. The Defendant has no recollection of the day in question, as the alleged incident occurred over three years ago. No evidence has been provided to support the claim. 

1. The Defendant moved addresses since the date of the alleged parking event. The Claimant’s delay in pursuing the matter has prejudiced the Defendant’s ability to gather relevant evidence, including records of correspondence and signage at the location. 

 

Signage and Contract Formation 

1. The Claimant is put to strict proof that: 

1. The signs in place on the material date were clear, legible, and prominently displayed. 

1. The terms of parking were communicated effectively to drivers entering the site. 

1. A valid contract was formed between the Claimant and the Defendant. 

1. The Defendant contends that any signs at the location (if they existed) were insufficiently clear to form a contract. 

 

Standing and Authority 

1. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have the authority to issue and enforce parking charges at the location in question. The Defendant requires evidence of the Claimant's agreement with the landowner. 

 

Unfair and Inflated Charges 

1. The sum claimed includes an additional £70, described as “damages” which the Defendant asserts is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 makes it clear that such costs are unrecoverable unless specified in the contract. 

 

Lack of Particulars 

1. The Defendant asserts that the Particulars of Claim are vague and lack sufficient detail to establish a cause of action. The Defendant reserves the right to amend their defense should the Claimant provide further particulars. 

 

Conclusion 

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Claimant is put to strict proof of every element of the claim. 

1. The Court is invited to strike out the claim due to the Claimant’s failure to substantiate their case and the disproportionate nature of the claim amount. 

 

Statement of Truth 

I believe that the facts stated in this defense are true. 

Signed: 

 

Date:  
*************************************************************************************************************
"""




The site looks like there are signs on google maps but not on the actual entrance where the gate is, however, there is one sign opposite after the T-junction where the parking road splits after the gates, and if you are entering the site, you would be focusing either left or right and not directly in front to the little illegible notice that's across the road.

Any thoughts on this approach are welcomed. The numbering is all "1" in the defense draft as the formatting didnt copy so well.

Thanks so much for reading.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with all your personal detail hidden of course.

By the way, there is no letter 's' in the word Defence.  

halsam

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with all your personal detail hidden of course.

By the way, there is no letter 's' in the word Defence.  

Hello KeithP thanks a lot for the reply. 

Ha! There is indeed no 's' in Defence. 

Here is the Claim Form



Thanks again for your very fast reply 

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 21st January, you have until Monday 10th February 2025 to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS'), but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AOS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AOS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the AOS guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an AOS, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Coupon-mad

Then has 1 month to submit a defence

Nope. See Keith's correct dates above.

Then grab the template defence, add 'and driver' to paragraph 2 and just copy the exact style of paragraph 3 from  the thread by @shahib_02

halsam

VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok firstly thank you so much to KeithP and Coupon-mad for pointing me in the right direction and I scrapped the attempted defence from the first post.

I basically copied and pasted the template defence and made adjustments accordingly and also read through in detail.

Followed the protocols, submitted the defence by email and followed all the numbered steps in the post "Template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs - edited in 2025"

Fast forward to today, court day. I take a day off work, prepare everything, only to go there and find out that it was dismissed 1 month before and nobody told me.

These people are scammers, parasites, cockroaches. They pushed to the limit hoping I would slip up. Wasted my time and energy. But hey, they backed out and the private parking extortion racket is a scam and thanks to this wonderful forum I won.

Coupon-mad

Congrats! Discontinued not 'dismissed'.

You realise you can now email the local court to ask for your loss of leave (£95) and travel costs for the wasted day off work (this was covered on the final paragraph of your defence)?

Further details and links to two 'costs after discontinuance' examples are in the second post of the NEWBIES thread. If you are sure the discontinuance isn't sitting in your junk emails(?)  you can get them for wasted costs.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Now: get some revenge on the parking industry. This is your one chance to change the law. This month only. To be part of the push to change things in future, it's very important that people like you tell the Government that:

a) motorists have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be a SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that people trust. The sector is crying out for an independent and impartial appeals service - not two involved in a race to the bottom - that will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court. 

b).  THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND OFFERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN' THAT ONLY THE VULNERABLE PAY. DRAS MAKE NO MONEY IF THEY HANDLE DISPUTES IN THE SPIRIT OF THE APPEALS CHARTER, WHICH IS WHY THEY ALWAYS PLOUGH ON TO COURT CLAIMS AND CCJs, RATHER THAN OFFERING REAL RESOLUTION AT PRE-ACTION STAGE. THEY OFFER NOTHING, NO LEGITIMATE OPTION TO KEEP CASES OUT OF COURT.

c)  DCB LEGAL are completely wasting people's time and money with (according to the last government's draft Impact Assessment) over 110,000 template scattergun claims being spewed out per annum, and yet little/no intention to proceed to hearings.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We will discuss it further in a few days or at the weekend on that thread if you want more focus. But do it while you are angry and tell The Government about your wasted trip to court and all the stress and wasted costs.

patient_dream

Whichever way DCBL, the famous timewasters LOST ..... The courts don't like timewasters or those who practice extortion

WELL DONE