DCB LEGAL LTD. Letter Of Claim

tony_gold

Coupon-mad said:

OK, so use the full (long) Template Defence and just change the date in shahib's Paragraph 3 that is linked there.

Good Evening,

Ive done the "Acknowledgment of service" just now, I have until 29th April 2025 to file defense.

Wondering, is it worth writing in the defence " I indent in claiming from the claimant expenses of loss of earnings for the time spent preparing the defence"?

tony_gold

Below is my current defence, Its based off shahib's defense but I've added in multiple parts of it to fit my case.

Pls read through it and let me know if any adjutments are advisable.

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all. It is denied that any breach of contract occurred, and it is further denied that the Claimant has any legal standing to bring this claim. The Claimant, understood to be some third-party private parking outfit with no ownership of the land, is nothing more than a glorified middleman trying to cash in on inflated penalties via vague and misleading legal threats.

2. The Particulars of Claim (“POC”) are as lazy and generic as they come—clearly copy-pasted from a template and utterly devoid of any meaningful facts. They fail entirely to comply with CPR 16.4 and the relevant Practice Directions. The Claimant seems to expect the court to accept vague and incoherent allegations with no proper statement of facts or legal basis. The Defendant is left having to guess what the case is even about. This is not just unfair—it’s a textbook abuse of process.

3. On the facts actually known to the Defendant: yes, the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle on the date in question. But no, the Defendant was not the driver. The Claimant is not entitled to demand the identity of the driver, and the Defendant is under no obligation to provide it. The conditions for keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) have not been met, and the Defendant denies any liability under that statute.

4. This claim is a sham dressed up to look like a legal dispute. No contract was entered into. The signage (if it even existed) was either unreadable, hidden, or simply not capable of creating any binding legal obligations. The Claimant is put to strict proof that (i) their signage was visible and legible, (ii) it clearly communicated the parking terms, and (iii) the driver freely entered into a contract based on those terms. The Defendant is confident they cannot do any of those things.

5. The Claimant is also trying to pass off a massively inflated £170 charge—an entirely fictional figure made up of a £100 "parking charge" and a laughable £70 "debt recovery fee"—as if it were somehow normal or enforceable. It’s not. These inflated figures have been thrown out by courts up and down the country for being nothing more than a scam tactic to scare people into paying. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis made very clear that any such charge must be clearly communicated, reasonable, and serve a legitimate purpose. None of that applies here.

6. The Beavis case was about a free retail park with clear signage and a legitimate business model behind the charge. This case, by contrast, involves an opportunistic private company trying to squeeze money out of motorists using obscure signs and dubious claims. The facts here are worlds apart from Beavis, and the Claimant is shamelessly trying to mislead the court by pretending otherwise.

7. The Defendant also notes that no actual financial loss was caused to anyone. There was no obstruction, no misuse of land, no damage, and no unpaid fee. In short, nothing happened to justify a £170 penalty—this is pure profiteering. The Defendant asserts that this charge is not compensation; it’s a punishment, and a money-grabbing one at that.

8. The Defendant has never received a Notice to Keeper that complies with the strict requirements of PoFA 2012. Without this, the Claimant cannot pursue the registered keeper for any charge, regardless of what they might want the court to believe. According to the debt collection letter, the alleged PCN was issued on 26/09/2024. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the notice was issued and served in time and in full compliance with statute. Any failure here is fatal to their case.

9. This is a classic example of a predatory parking company abusing the small claims system to intimidate individuals into paying unjustified sums. The courts are increasingly wise to this racket, and rightly so. These companies operate by relying on legal ignorance, empty threats, and bogus fees. This Defendant is calling their bluff.

10. In conclusion, the Defendant invites the court to strike out this claim entirely as an abuse of process. Alternatively, the court is asked to dismiss it at hearing, and award the Defendant costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to the Claimant’s unreasonable and exploitative conduct throughout.

Coupon-mad

No. That's just your costs which is normal and this is already covered at the end of the Template Defence.

And there is no 's' in defence so please change your device spellcheck settings from US to British English.

tony_gold

Coupon-mad said:

No. That's just your costs which is normal and this is already covered at the end of the Template Defence.

And there is no 's' in defence so please change your device spellcheck settings from US to British English.

Sorry, Spelling isnt my strong point.
Posted my current draft of the "Defence" so lmk.

Le_Kirk

That doesn't look like the template defence!

tony_gold

Hiya guys,

please see below an email received from DCB scammers.

"Good afternoon

Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim. In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court. Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence. If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not.

Kind Regards,  

 

[Removed by Forum Team]

Litigation Associate 

DCB Legal Ltd "

 

tony_gold

please advise if a response is advisable, they also attached a N180 Directions questionnaire. Which for some reason they ticketed that a hearing isnt required, Im more than happy to show up to court if this what it takes though.

Coupon-mad

This is already covered in the first 12 steps.