CEL DCB Legal court claim 2025

NotDCBLegal666

Hi there, 

I've read many of the threads on here, although I thought I would see if anyone has anything further to add regarding the defense I am creating for a CCJ Claim Form received from DCB Legal in relation to two PPC (Civil Enforcement Ltd) PCNs issued last February 2024 - see attached.

My wife was the driver and not me. The car park in question is an overflow car park for our local hospital. She had paid for 2 hours of parking on both occasions, and we have receipts. She was taking our 5 year old son to Ear, Nose and Throat regarding his sight issue. The hospital was late in seeing my Son, but my Wife still made it back to the car on time, however took a few minutes to drive out of the car park because she was tending to our Son. My wife is also disabled (chronic/severe autoimmune neutropenia) and she needed to eat and drink something herself before driving. 

I have done an AOS today. Issue date was 18th Feb 2025. 

In terms of a defense, I am looking at POFA 2022 Notice to Keeper (I have not received it so I cannot check if it meets all requirements), grace periods, no damages as only a few mins late which are within the grace periods. 

If anyone can offer any further advice, it would be much appreciated. I am looking forward to going to Court to defend this. 

NotDCBLegal666

See attached.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

It's not clear from your post, but who is the Defendant - you or your wife?
Remember that any Defence must be in the name of the named Defendant.

With a Claim Issue Date of 18th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's three 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'.

NotDCBLegal666

Thanks @KeithP. I am considering making a counter claim against Civil Enforcement Ltd also, at £X per hour for time taken to resolve this matter. So far, I have spent around 3 hours looking into this.

NotDCBLegal666

@KeithP I am the Defendant as the claim is addressed to me. They are citing POFA as I am keeper.

No Notice of Keeper has been received (so I cannot check if it meets requirements). I can't even check the grace periods as the Claim form doesn't state the alleged times of breach of terms.

Coupon-mad

NotDCBLegal666 said:

Thanks @KeithP. I am considering making a counter claim against Civil Enforcement Ltd also, at £X per hour for time taken to resolve this matter. So far, I have spent around 3 hours looking into this.

But that's costs (you get to list those later)... costs/time are not a counterclaim reason.

In most current defences v DCB Legal claims, paragraph 3 (within the 30 paragraph Template Defence) looks similar to the thread below by @shahib_02  ... just change the incident date:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

No need for more detail except in your case just add an extra paragraph to the Template Defence as 3.1.  citing the NHS car parking Principles and the Equality Act 2010. Both work as arguments that your wife was entitled to more time without any penalty.

NotDCBLegal666

@Coupon-mad Do you know how I would word the extra paragraph as 3.1 given that I was not the driver, it was my Wife? Would I need to disclose who the driver is in this case? 

Coupon-mad

No.

You already know from the Template Defence where to put that you weren't driving.

GrannyKate

If this is a hospital car park and not one which just happens to be near the hospital then complain to PALS at the hospital - they should cancel it. 

NotDCBLegal666

Thanks @GrannyKate. It's not an official hospital car park. It's signposted as a car park from within the hospital grounds though, as though it is, which is why my Wife parked in it. When I spoke to PALS, they say it isn't managed by them.

NotDCBLegal666

Hi @KeithP and @Coupon-mad

I have written the Defence - see redacted version below. Do you think any changes are to be made? 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

*********

(Claimant) 

- and -  

*********             

 (Defendant)

_________________

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, but NOT the driver at the time.

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCNs were "issued on 21/02/2024, 27/02/2024" (the dates of the alleged visits).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

3.1     Leen Gate Convenience, referenced in the Particulars of Claim (POC) as "Car Park," is an overflow parking area associated with the Queens Medical Hospital. The vehicle in question was being driven by an individual who is disabled with a chronic illness, and, as advised to the Defendant, was in attendance at the hospital on 21/02/2024 and 27/02/2024.

The Driver has informed the Defendant that a fee was paid to park at the Leen Gate Convenience location. However, the POC lack essential detail, including the specific alleged timing of contraventions. This omission renders it impossible for either the Driver or the Defendant to accurately ascertain the full facts surrounding the alleged breach.

3.2     It is submitted that the Claimant's actions may contravene the NHS Car Parking Principles and the Equality Act 2010. These provisions, among other requirements, ensure that individuals with disabilities are granted reasonable adjustments, including extended time allowances for parking, without incurring penalties. The Defendant contends that the Claimant’s enforcement of a penalty in this instance may amount to unlawful discrimination and a failure to comply with statutory obligations.

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.