UKPC DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

Gr1pr

The debt collectors letter is irrelevant , only the UKPC letters and CNBC paperwork,  plus any DCB Legal paperwork,  are relevant 

What is the redacted location for this charge in the POC, London or Birmingham  ?

Paragraph 3 should address the POC from the lower left of the claim form,  rebutting the points in the POC 

Not receiving paperwork due to an address change is a statement of fact, not a defence 

The claimant gets one go at obtaining keeper details from the DVLA database under their KADOE contract with the DVLA,  they post the NTK PCN letter to that registered address,  job done ! Not their problem if the keeper hasn't updated the address promptly,  or at all

Why are there only 9 paragraphs above yet 10 in the template   ?

I suggest that you edit your thread title to something more suitable like 

UKPC DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

superworm

The original UKPC letter sent to our new address (page 1 of this thread) has a London location mentioned. 
In the PoC however the address is that of Birmingham.

Does that in any way affect the line of defence? 

If I have to work with the Birmingham location, the only line of defence there is that there was inadequate signage, and even by their own photographic evidence, its quite illegible. 

I'll include point 10 and change the label for this thread. thanks for your inputs. 

Gr1pr

Personally,  I would adapt the general typical paragraph 3 that denies a contravention etc, as seen in numerous recent cases on here

superworm

Here is the draft once again with the updates as suggested.

Please offer any feedback you may have and that will be truly appreciated.

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3. Referring to the quantum in the POC: the claimed sum is hugely exaggerated (no PC can be £170 on private land and interest cannot accrue on that inflated total) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. Regarding the pleaded case: Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are also denied. To the Defendant's knowledge, there was no contravention and any purported terms on signs were inadequate and illegible (even by the claimant’t own admission by virtue of the image of the signage). The Claimant is to put strict proof of all of their allegations. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: '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))'.

1505grandad

Who signed the claim form  -  probably on reverse at top  -  was it S.E.?

superworm

@1505grandad its David John Croot (Claimant's lega representative as defined by CPR 2.3(1))

Duke1999

The solicitor that looks as though he is signing 10s if not 100s of thousands of claims per year!!

superworm

I'm keen to update para 3 to the following as no PCN was issued on the windscreen and there was no ANPR either:

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 19/04/2025" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. To the Defendant's knowledge, there was no contravention and any purported terms on signs were inadequate and illegible (even by the claimant’t own admission by virtue of the image of the signage). The Claimant is to put strict proof of all of their allegations. 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.

superworm

Thank you all for your help.
I have submitted the defence this morning. Fingers crossed. I will update when I hear more. Thanks once again.