DCB Legal Claim – Need Defence Letter Support

ShayMoney

I’ve received a Claim Form from DCB Legal Ltd regarding an alleged failure to pay for parking at a service station where I went to get my car washed. The claim states that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued on 25th September 2022 (Claim Form attached). I submitted the Acknowledgement of Service via MCOL on 1st April 2025.

I’d really appreciate it if the good folks here could kindly review my draft Defence and let me know if there’s anything that needs improving. Thank you!

ShayMoney

Here's my draft:

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').

 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage: (attaching the case docs)

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  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.

6. The Defendant recalls entering the premises solely to use the paid car wash facility and did not, at any point, leave the site or park for any purpose other than the active use of services provided on-site.

7. The Defendant paid for and used the car wash facility in good faith and had no reason to suspect any wrongdoing. At no point was it made clear that use of the car wash would be considered a breach of terms.

8. The Defendant did not notice any clear, prominent, or legible signage indicating that the use of the car wash would result in a penalty or that additional conditions applied while on site. If signs were present, they were either insufficiently visible, unclear, or obscured—contrary to the standards expected under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

And the continues as in the template....

Coupon-mad

Nope you need to use the normal template defence not the one for Moorside and specific claimants with poor POC.

ShayMoney

Thanks @Coupon-mad! Here the updated draft. Kept it simple and straightforward.

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 PCN was "issued on 25/09/2022" (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 £170 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.

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

6. 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.

And the rest continues as in the template....

Coupon-mad

I think you may need to re-write this bit:

"4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen"

due to the allegation being 'no valid pay by phone session'. The C won't concede that unless you add an extra paragraph above that, saying that the car was not 'parked' at the petrol station and instead the driver went to get the car washed. Using a car wash at services isn't a parking session.

By the way you told us:

"I went to get my car washed"

...so why did you copy this (a lie in your case)?

"but NOT the driver"

ShayMoney

Oops! My bad. Lazy copy and paste job on my part...

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. The Defendant recalls entering the premises solely to use the paid car wash facility and did not, at any point, leave the site or park for any purpose other than the active use of services provided on-site.

4. The Defendant paid for and used the car wash facility in good faith and had no reason to suspect any wrongdoing. At no point was it made clear that use of the car wash would be considered a breach of terms.

5. The Defendant did not notice any clear, prominent, or legible signage indicating that the use of the car wash would result in a penalty or that additional conditions applied while on site. If signs were present, they were either insufficiently visible, unclear, or obscured—contrary to the standards expected under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

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.

Coupon-mad

But now you've binned the usual para 3!  Hence I said "unless you add an extra paragraph".