DCB legal Defence statement

guppy101

I am writing in response to the Letter of Claim issued by DCB Legal regarding an alleged outstanding Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from September 2022. I strongly dispute this claim and maintain that I am not liable for the amount demanded.

On the date in question, I parked in a car park operated by Smart Parking Ltd, which was advertised as using ANPR technology to calculate the correct parking fee at the time of payment. Relying on this system, I did not track my exact parking duration. However, upon attempting to pay at the machine, I was not shown the amount owed after correctly inputting my vehicle registration number.

Believing the machine had failed to register my details, I initially paid a small amount for one hour, expecting the system to reject it and prompt me for the correct fee. Instead, the machine accepted the payment without adjustment. I attempted a second payment, whilst video recording the process, which again failed to display the correct amount. Ultimately, I paid for two hours, estimating my parking duration. No car park attendant was available to assist me.

Several weeks later, I received a PCN alleging insufficient payment for my parking duration. I contested this charge, explaining the machine’s failure to display the correct fee, but my request for cancellation was rejected on the grounds that I had parked for 220 minutes but only paid for 120 minutes. This decision failed to acknowledge the faulty payment system.

Following this, I received multiple letters from a debt recovery firm, which eventually ceased. However, more than two years later, DCBL resumed sending debt recovery letters, which I ignored. Recently, DCB Legal has issued a Letter of Claim.

I have formally responded, objecting to this demand and stating my refusal to pay. I am prepared to mount a strong defence should this matter proceed to court. Based on extensive research and discussions in online forums, it appears DCB Legal frequently uses Letters of Claim and court proceedings as intimidation tactics to pressure individuals into paying unjustified charges.

I am committed to defending my position and ensuring that my case is robust. I would appreciate any guidance on additional steps I should take at this stage to strengthen my defence.

Coupon-mad

None. Just send the template LBC reply but don't show it here and don't show DCB Legal's template reply...please spare us!

guppy101

Thank you for clarifying. I have already sent the template LBC. will wait and see. 

guppy101

Following the recent Letter Before Claim (LBC), I can confirm that DCB Legal has opted to proceed with their claim. I received the claim form dated 25/06/2025, and I have submitted the Acknowledgment of Service (AOS) within the required 14-day window. I intend to submit my defence before the deadline, which I understand is 28th July.

Unfortunately, due to the illness and subsequent passing of a close family member, I was unable to prepare my defence within the intended timeframe. It has been a challenging few days, and at one point I considered settling the matter simply to make it go away. However, I have now decided to proceed with submitting my defence.

As I begin reviewing the relevant threads and materials, I’d appreciate your guidance on the key defence points I should focus on.

To summarise my case:

• The signage at the car park indicates that duration is monitored via ANPR cameras (photos attached).

• I was under the impression that, based on this signage, I did not need to manually track my parking time.

• The payment machine required me to input my registration number but failed to show the correct amount due (I have video evidence).

• I paid twice, covering a two-hour stay, and subsequently left the premises.

• Despite presenting these facts, my appeal was rejected, with the suggestion that I should have monitored my own parking time—contradicting their own signage.

• This car park operates differently from other ANPR-monitored facilities, which typically calculate and display payment due at the time of departure.

Any assistance or insight you can provide regarding how best to frame these issues in my defence would be greatly appreciated.

Date of alleged contravention : 16/09/2022

First PCN dated : 05/10/2025

Claim letter dated : 25/06/2025

AOS sent on :06/07/2025

guppy101

POC screenshot attached. 

guppy101

Correction first PCN dated 5/10/2022

Gr1pr

Use the new concise defence template by coupon mad in announcements at the top of the forum 

Your short concise paragraph 3 should outline the basics and rebut the POC,  nothing more at this stage,  save all the information and story telling for your Witness statement plus Exhibits bundle in several months time 

So if 2 payments were made,  fully covering the time on site,  say so

Keep it simple, same as all the others this month 

guppy101

Thank you very much

It is alleged that I have paid less that the time I parked. Despite the signage advertising that the duration will be calculated by ANPR cameras, no amount was displayed by the pay machine upon entering the VRM. I paid an estimate of 2 hrs (only a pound for an hour) but it seems I should have paid for another hour which I would have if I had known how much to pay. 

Just to be clear the concise defence template as on this page ?

hxxps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

I have drafted my paragraph 3 as below. Just wanted to be clear that all the remaining paragraphs holds true for case please ?

3)  Misleading Signage and Defective Payment Mechanism The Defendant contends that the signage displayed at the relevant car park location was ambiguous and the payment mechanism was materially defective. The signage indicated that the premises were monitored via ANPR cameras, that payment could be remitted at any time prior to exiting, and that the duration of stay would be calculated through ANPR technology. However, upon entering the correct vehicle registration number into the payment terminal, the system failed to reflect the accurate amount due, thereby depriving the Defendant of the opportunity to render full and proper payment. In the absence of onsite assistance, the Defendant made payment corresponding to the estimated duration of parking. Notwithstanding notification of the defective equipment and misleading signage, the Claimant declined to rescind the parking charge. Such conduct, in the Defendant’s submission, vitiates the formation of any valid contractual agreement and contravenes established principles of fairness and transparency.

4) Referring to the POC: Paragraph 1 and 2  is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Due to misleading signage and defective payment mechanism no valid contract was entered between the defendant and claimant.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied.


Thank you very much again and apologies have left it to the last moment which is not what intended, 

Gr1pr

Add the other paragraphs to your draft, renumber if necessary,  then copy and paste your draft into the defence box on MCOL and save it.   Does it fit in the 122 lines  ?

If not, delete the last paragraph and try again,  or try to reduce your paragraph 3

You can then either submit it or wait for more feedback, but it needs to be submitted on MCOL by 4pm tomorrow 

Coupon-mad

That para 3 will be fine as long as you put it through a 'Chat-GPT killer' (is there such a thing? should be!) to remove any word longer than 7 letters and replace them with ordinary conversational words. 

Or just write it in normal English.

guppy101

Thank you both @Coupon-mad and @Gr1pr. Have sent the defence now after simplifying paragraph 3. Will wait and see.