DCB Legal Parking Fine

stellios_58

Hi folks,

Firstly, thank you for all the information you have put up. I'm looking for some feedback on my defence to DCB Legal please:

I have received a claim form. The POC are:
1. Defendant is indebted to the claimant for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle ...etc. @ location
2. The PCN was issued on DATE
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of terms on the sign (contract). Reason: Permit holders only
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the claimant claims:
1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the county court act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.3 until judgement or sooner payment
3. Costs and court fees

Defence:

1.        DEFENCE

 

1.        The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

2.        The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

 

3.        It is admitted that the defendant’s vehicle was parked at the location because the defendant visited the restaurant in question. The defendant gave the vehicles registrations to the restaurant. The defendant did not think anything further about this until a parking company sent a letter requesting payment for unauthorised parking.

 

4.        The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5.        The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

 

6.        The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

7.        The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

 

8.        The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

 

9.        This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

 

10.   This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

 

11.   The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022: LINK

 

2.        The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "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." 

12.   Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found here: Link

13.   Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

 

 

14.   This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules.

 

15.   It is denied that the added damages/fee sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis.  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 ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a PCN to £135 exaggerated the cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

 

 

16.   This Claimant has not incurred costs. A PCN model already includes what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' and it generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and £85 was held to more than cover the minor costs of the operation (NB: debt collectors charge nothing in failed collection cases).

 

17.   Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, all non-monetary clauses went unchallenged. It will replace the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes, which are not regulation and carry limited weight.  It is surely a clear steer for the Courts that the DLUHC said in 2023 that it is addressing 'market failure'.

CRA Breaches

 

1.        Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a party raises it or not. Further, claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3):

Link

2.       The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'.  In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

 

 

Conclusion

There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm.  The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis shows that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it.  The claim is entirely without merit and the POC embarrassing.  The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that poorly pleaded claims like this should be struck out.

 In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

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

(b)     a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct 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))."   

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence 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.

 

Gr1pr

Please only post the paragraphs you have changed from the template for our advice,  not the whole defence,  nobody will check it due to not knowing the parts that need checking 

Dcb legal did not issue the parking charge notice,  so which parking company is the actual claimant   ?

What is the issue date on the claim form   ?

What date did you complete the AOS on MCOL   ?


The chances are that the POC are defective,  especially the date in there,  so you should probably be using the recent numbered paragraph 3 rebuttal as seen in many other recent threads on here like this one

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6583975/can-you-please-check-my-defence-against-ecpl-dcb-legal#latest

We typically only want to see your proposed paragraphs 2 & 3

Ps, it's definitely NOT a fine, magistrates issue fines and this case is not a magistrates case

Car1980

"It is admitted that the defendant’s vehicle was parked at the location because the defendant visited the restaurant in question. The defendant gave the vehicles registrations to the restaurant . The defendant did not think anything further about this until a parking company sent a letter requesting payment for unauthorised parking."

I'd say this:

It is confirmed that the defendant’s vehicle was parked at the location because the defendant visited the restaurant in question. The defendant gave the vehicle's registrations to the restaurant and as a result the car was given authorisation to park. The defendant did not think anything further about this until a parking company sent a letter demanding payment erroneously alleging unauthorised parking. The defendant has absolutely no idea why the claimant is claiming the car wasn't authorised to park when it clearly was. There was no physical permit scheme in operation so the claimant's Particulars of Claim appear flawed.

Coupon-mad

With a DCB Legal claim, add a paragraph 3.1 that starts 'Regarding the POC' as seen in every recent DCB Legal case defence.

Also, you have removed chunks from the Template Defence so I can't tell if anything important is missing. You are meant to use all of it (but pleeease don't show us the template!).

stellios_58

Thank you. Will amend 

stellios_58

Claimant is Civil Enforcement Ltd 

stellios_58

What is the issue date on the claim form   ?
23/01/2025

What date did you complete the AOS on MCOL 
26/01/2025

KeithP

stellios_58 said:

What is the issue date on the claim form   ?
23/01/2025

What date did you complete the AOS on MCOL 
26/01/2025

With a Claim Issue Date of 23rd January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') on 27th January (26th being a Sunday), you have until 4pm on Monday 24th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's nearly 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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'.