I PARK , DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

driver26

Hi all I am hoping someone can help!

I received a parking charge notice in August 2024. However I was not the driver of the car and there is proof of parking on the day. They have automatic cameras so they should be able to see I was not the driver. I then received multiple letters which I ignored. I have now received a letter with a claim form. Looking closely at this letter it states (overstayed without authority) the charge is now £254.16

I have completed my AoS and I am currently writing up a defense and have no clue on what to write. I have started my draft following advice on here:

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.

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 18/07/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  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 £160 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

I am not sure what to write after this as I don’t want to say anything which will get me in deeper. I have also read not to do it through moneyclaim, so my question is do I send my defense on a normal email? 

Any advice would be great. Thank you! 

Coupon-mad

You don't have a letter from DCB Legal.

You have a claim form from the CNBC if you've done the AOS.

Show us the PoC but redact your VRM.

Which PPC? 

I am not sure what to write after this.

Eh? But the 30 paragraph Template Defence obviously follows that bit. You aren't writing anything yourself.

driver26

Hi

sorry not sure what PPC is. This has never happened to me before so I am trying to find all answers.

Coupon-mad

But 'PPC' is in the common acronyms in the NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST thread. Think about what it might mean in a parking case ...or just read the sticky thread. You've shown us who it is now!

driver26

Thank you, do I use all points of the template or just the key points? 

Coupon-mad

Did you miss "yes - all of it" in the Template Defence?  Just read it slowly. With DCB Legal claims you add 2 or 3 words and one date...

driver26

Hi @Coupon-mad

Thank you for all your advice so far. I have done my draft response do you think I should add anything further? 

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC) issued to vehicle xxxx at Upper East Parade Car Park, Bradford, BD1 5HE
2. The date of contravention is 18/07/2024

and the D was issued with PC(s) by the

3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Parking Without A Permit Or Authority After A Period Of Purchased Parking Has Expired. (overstayed

Without Authority)

4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012,

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £160 being the total of the PC(s) and
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.02 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant named on claim   

 (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 keep, 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 PCN was "issued on 18/07/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  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 £160 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

4.The defendant was heavily pregnant at the time and was not able to drive, Referring to the POC: paragraph 3 is denied. 

1. 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.

6.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.

I have then added all points of the 30 paragraph template. 

Coupon-mad

I think you don't need a separate para 4.

Just add 'The defendant was heavily pregnant at the time and was not able to drive' to the end of para 2, after the bit you've already added.

driver26

That is great just changed. Do you think this will be good to send now. Just to confirm I email as attachment to the email from the newbie thread? 

Gr1pr

Paragraph 2 has a typo error,  it says keep,  should be keeper 

Check first for any spelling mistakes,  errors etc

Perhaps copy and paste your final draft of paragraphs 3 & 4 below first,  for checking,  before replacing paragraphs 2 & 3 in the template 

Save your final document as a pdf,  attach it to the email and send it to the claim responses email address shown in the 12 steps in the defence template thread,  as shown in the email list in the 1st post in the defence template thread 

Then check your inbox and spam folders for the email auto response from the CNBC in Northampton 

What is the issue date from the top right of the claim form  ?  ( you redacted it  )

driver26

Hi @Gr1pr thank you for your advice. I have adjusted the paragraphs. Sorry the issue date is the 2nd April and I did AoS on the 7th April.

I’m hoping to send this off in the next few days. 

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. The defendant was heavily pregnant at the time and was not able to drive 

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 18/07/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  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 £160 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

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.