DCB legal claim form

parkingwarzzz

Help needed in relation to the defence that I have prepared using the templates. I have received a parking ticket from First parking LLP. I have paid a contract to park at location for a year, received confirmation of payment so parked. I returned later to find PCN attached to car, issued approximately 1 hour after parking. Apparently I needed to receive an email confirming authority to park - just paying £110 is not enough it seems. I did receive an email confirming payment so presumed this was the requirement met. the Actual email was received 12 hours later at 8 o'clock at night!! 
I appealed but was rejected -surprising enough, and now after several threatening letters, I have now received a claim form. 
Using templates on here I have formulated my defence, can someone have a look and see if it is sufficient. I have added the defence below as well as the POC. I have included points 1-3 and will obviously add the additional points from Coupon-Mads "Template Defense thread". Can I just also ask do I add all of the points (4-30) or will some of them not be applicable and should be removed?

Any advice is very much appreciated as I try to deal with these people...

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:

1. 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 at the time.

1. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper/driver, paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.

   (1) The Defendant paid for annual parking permit which predates the issuance of the PCN, and can provide documentary evidence to the fact.

   (2) The delay in the university’s or First Parking’s back-end system in issuing the final confirmation email should not render any permit invalid during that time, especially when there was no warning provided that there would be any such delay. It is unreasonable for a parking enforcement company to issue a penalty for a period during which the customer has paid in full but is still waiting for an internal processing delay. It is noted that the claimants response to the appeal was considerably quicker than the time taken to send the final confirmation email. This is a predatory practice designed to exploit administrative loopholes and penalise individuals unfairly.

   (3) The Claimant has rejected the Defendants appeal with incorrect reasons provided and does not participate in the Ombudsman Services, thereby allowing no further appeal so is in fact 'marking its own homework'.

   (4) Following the rejection of the Defendants appeal, the Defendant has received multiple letters from the Claimant or its agents demanding escalating and inconsistent amounts, including threats of bailiffs and legal action. These threats are disproportionate and distressing, particularly given that the Defendant had already paid for the permit in question. The Claimant’s actions represent a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, including the principle of fairness. The enforcement of this charge, given the facts above, is not only unfair but could be seen as an abuse of process.

   (5)The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £150 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

 

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

parkingwarzzz said:

Can I just also ask do I add all of the points (4-30) or will some of them not be applicable and should be removed?

Does this line in the template defence thread answer that query?...

We recommend you continue with this wording (yes, all of it!...

parkingwarzzz

Hi, thanks for the welcome.
Issue date was 28/4/25
AOS was submitted on 8/5/25, received on the 9th.

KeithP

parkingwarzzz said:

Issue date was 28/4/25
AOS was submitted on 8/5/25, received on the 9th.

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 2nd June 2025 to file a Defence.

That's almost two 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'.

Car1980

What a ridiculous claim and set of circumstances.

Coupon-mad

Seconded.

Flipping harassment with no basis.

And according to DCB Legal it costs £70 (plus £50 legal fees) to chase £80! They make millions from these roboclaims.

parkingwarzzz

KeithP - thanks for the advice but I have already added my defence as per original post, I was hoping someone could review it and give some feedback as to it's suitability,  cheers

Coupon-mad

I think it's great (adding the rest of the template defence of course but don't show us that!).

parkingwarzzz

Thanks coupon mad, getting conflicting advice from others that I shouldn't use legal jargon because judges immediately see it as a copy and paste template and this could trip me up in court. They say I should instead just use basic plain English and focus just on the ticket not all the additional of stuff like harassment etc.🤔??

Coupon-mad

From whom? 

parkingwarzzz

Some posts on facebook