Smal Claims Court -DCB Legal for Euro Car Parks Limited - Heathrow South

chad888

On behalf of a parent that I am fighting this claim for. Not so much a question per se, just another thread to add to the repertoire when it's won/discontinued and we can use it again for future defendants.

Claim form recieved 11th March. AOS done on 27th March when I found the claim form at my parents house (elderly with no idea what it was about). The keeper was not the driver. It is a DCB Legal claim.

The claim is £170 for PCN, £85 for court fee and legal costs, £14.20 for interest. Total £269.20. POC especially poor.

I filed the defence today, it was for:

Whilst collecting a passenger from Heathrow, they pulled in off the dual carriageway to use the bathroom and buy a drink at the Asda, and check the flight arrival wasn't delayed. The 9 parking bays are to the left of the driving way for HGVs filling up fuel (it is a very popular station for HGVs in and around the Heathrow area). After returning to drive off, a convoy of HGVs had blocked the bays whilst queueing for fuel, and the driver had to wait for 3 HGVs to fuel and move out the way before they could get out. Total around 10 minutes over allowed time (or so driver thinks) wasn't there longer than 30 minutes.

I will add to this thread as more occurs.

chad888

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.

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 16/06/2023" (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 driver of the vehicle is not the keeper to whom this claim is addressed as the Defendant, 

and they recollect the following:

a. Euro Garages Heathrow South is an ESSO service station for a single side of a 

Dual-Carriageway with a separate entrance and exit. As soon as a driver enters the 

service station, they will drive past nine marked parking bays to the left and nine fuel 

pumps for standard vehicles, before arriving at a single large vehicle (HGV) fuel 

pump at the end. 

b. The driver parked in the nearest marked bay to the entrance, to use the service 

station services and check their passengers flight had not been delayed, that they 

were travelling to Heathrow to pick-up.

c. After returning to their car, they found that a convoy of approximately five or six 

large (HGV) vehicles had entered the courtyard to fill up fuel from the single large 

vehicle pump on the end, blocking the drivers vehicle in question in for an 

extended period of time of approximately 30-minutes whilst three trucks filled up and 

were able to move out of the drivers way and allow them to get out of the marked 

bay.

5. 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.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

7. 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.

8. 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.

8. 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).

9. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory 

Parking Code of Practice in February 2022: 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

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." 

10. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) a draft Impact Assessment 

(IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The then Government's analysis is found here: 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/

attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

11. 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).

12. 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. Further, claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms 

Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3):

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/

450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

13. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains endured by Defendants cost 'eight times 

less' than the fixed +£70 per PCN. This causes immense consumer harm in the form of some half 

a million wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, that Judges are powerless to prevent. MoJ statistics 

reveal several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with c90% causing default CCJs 

totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. The false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of 

Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who aligned in 2021 to allow +£70, each led by a Board 

comprising the parking and debt firms who stood to gain from it. 

14. The heads of alleged loss or purported 'contractually agreed' sums are unspecified and not 

adequately broken down, but it is denied that the added costs / damages sought were incurred. In 

this industry, debt collectors charge nothing when failing to collect parking charges.
15. A typical private PCN model comprises a series of demands that the Supreme Court called an 

'automated letter-chain' and the parking charge itself is already inflated to generate a healthy profit. 

In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and the £85 PCN was held to more than cover 

the minor costs of the operation. This is less about genuine 'parking management' and more of a 

PCN-generating scheme, where debt demands are part of the regime.

16. Whilst the new Code is 'on hold' and not retrospective, the new MHCLG Secretary of State 

must still introduce a statutory Code of Practice according to the legislation already enacted. It is 

surely a clear steer for the Courts that the DLUHC said in 2023 that it is addressing 'market failure' 

and in 2025, the new Labour Government has pledged to resurrect the statutory Code with a 

Public Consultation expected within weeks. Statutory regulation will soon replace the BPA & IPC 

Code, so the clauses in the (temporarily stalled) February 2022 Code should bear significantly 

more weight than the industry's own self-serving version. 

17. 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'. That judgment was unaffected by Beavis and remains 

binding as the only authority covering the clear abuse of parking firms routinely adding imaginary 

'admin /debt recovery' fees to further enhance a large parking charge.

18. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 

('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered 

keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance, if they are relying upon 'keeper 

liability'.

19. The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' 

which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant's lack of 

large, readable signs are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, nor do they even 

meet the basic signage requirements in the current BPA & IPC Joint Code of Practice, which 

reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').

CRA breach - lack of prominent terms

20. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a 

party raises it or not.

21. 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 

adequately positioned where terms are bound to be seen) and all terms must be unambiguous and 

contractual obligations clear.

22. The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear 

terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 

and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to 

be a finding of bad faith). 

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

23. Unlike in Beavis, the penalty rule remains engaged. The CRA covers disproportionate sums, 

which are not exempt from being assessed for fairness because a 'fee' is not the core price term 

and neither was it prominently proclaimed on the signs. 

24. The Supreme Court held that deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate 

interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from 

alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms 

or cumbersome obligations ('concealed pitfalls or traps'). This Claimant has failed those tests, with small signs, hidden terms and minuscule small print that is incapable of binding a driver. Court of 

Appeal authorities about a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's ‘red hand rule’) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,

both leading authorities that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has 

been concluded; and

(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won 

because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be 

bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space''. 

Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR

25. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis that parking operators who do not 

own the land must hold prior written agreement from the landholder. Should the Claimant try to rely 

upon the finding in One Parking Solution v Wilshaw in this regard, it is averred that this appeal 

judgment was misguided and plainly wrong. The DVLA rules and requirements that relate to private 

parking operators are a fundamental set of rules specific to parking on private land and regrettably, 

HHJ Simpkiss was not appraised about the 'KADOE' requirement for written landowner authority. 

Even the BPA & IPC's questionable industry Code gets this right: absent written landowner 

authority, there is no 'reasonable cause' to obtain DVLA data nor to issue PCNs. 

26. It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) had written authority from the 

landowner to offer and form contracts with drivers at this site, in their own right. Many parking 

operators merely act as agents (contracted to put signs up and issue charges 'on behalf of' the site 

landowner) and this Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.

27. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The 

rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or 

rules of law and reject most disputes: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful average 5% of 

decided cases (ref: recent Annual IAS Reports). An impartial, fair appeals service was never on 

offer.

Conclusion

28. 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 Government IA 

analysis shows (from data from this industry) that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than 

the sum claimed for it. The claim itself relies on an unfair charge which is entirely without merit, and 

should be dismissed.

29. 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. 

30. 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))." 

Page 4 of 5

Coupon-mad

Show us the POC. 

Blindside6

Coupon-mad said:

Show us the POC. 

Why do you need to see the POC? Even if one was not familiar with DCB Legal boilerplate, straightforward to infer them from pleaded defence. Or am I missing something?

Car1980

There was an example a couple of hours ago where one single word in the POC has made the claim fatal for DCB and the parking co 😉

Blindside6

Car1980 said:

There was an example a couple of hours ago where one single word in the POC has made the claim fatal for DCB and the parking co 😉

Would welcome sight of that. Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Blindside6 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Show us the POC. 

Why do you need to see the POC? Even if one was not familiar with DCB Legal boilerplate, straightforward to infer them from pleaded defence. Or am I missing something?

I know what it's likely to say but I now always ask to see the POC because:

(a) we don't want to assume, and

(b) when we come back to threads six months or a year later, it helps immensely to see the POC to quickly help the person focus on their WS.  By that time, threads are sometimes ten or more pages long! It has really helped that we now have the POC at the start of every claim thread to hop back & skim read months later.

Over the months/years, some legals will certainly improve their POC so it really helps to see them all and not assume nothing has changed.

For example, it was only about 18 months ago when DCB Legal used to not plead the breach at all! They only put that right (for most clients) around Oct 2023 IIRC. Moorside Legal copied the 'old' DCB Legal POC.

Blindside6

Coupon-mad said:

Blindside6 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Show us the POC. 

Why do you need to see the POC? Even if one was not familiar with DCB Legal boilerplate, straightforward to infer them from pleaded defence. Or am I missing something?

I know what it's likely to say but I now always ask to see the POC because:

(a) we don't want to assume, and

(b) when we come back to threads six months or a year later, it helps immensely to see the POC to quickly help the person focus on their WS.  By that time, threads are sometimes ten or more pages long! It has really helped that we now have the POC at the start of every claim thread to hop back & skim read months later.

Over the months/years, some legals will certainly improve their POC so it really helps to see them all and not assume nothing has changed.

For example, it was only about 18 months ago when DCB Legal used to not plead the breach at all! They only put that right (for most clients) around Oct 2023 IIRC. Moorside Legal copied the 'old' DCB Legal POC.

(a) Indeed, my ABC: (Assume nothing, Believe no-one, Check everything).

(b) I can see the sense in that.

The PPC law firms I've dealt with, if you forgive me for saying, appear incapable of improving anything!

Yes, DCB Legal did change their boilerplate, certainly after early 2024. Manchester County Court, for one, was striking out their claims, with leave to amend PoC, over the pleading deficiency you mention. 

Coupon-mad

I'd love to know your connection! I know you can't say.

We used to have a judge post here (I guessed he was a judge and was right) and I have his email address now he's retired.

Blindside6

Coupon-mad said:

I'd love to know your connection! I know you can't say.

We used to have a judge post here (I guessed he was a judge and was right) and I have his email address now he's retired.

Please don't worry about it, I'm just another forum user passing by.

Here today, gone tomorrow as we say up t'North.