DCB Legal & First Parking - 2 x university parking court claims 3 weeks apart

Pandemonium78

There is a point 5 on a separate page, I don’t understand what it means though, can you help?

I don't understand point 4 either - what does it mean that I can apply to vary, set aside or stay this Order?

Pandemonium78

Also, may I ask have any claims that have used the new defence been discontinued yet?

I used the new much shorter version that was advised.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81916336#Comment_81916336

Hundreds! The defence is fine. Your grumpy judge just doesn't like its length.

And the second page is standard for orders made out of the blue. Parties always have the right to apply to set aside orders like this. BUT DON'T!!

Just play the game and comply like @Char27 did.

Pandemonium78

But the defence I used was the shorter version released towards the back end of last year, I don't know why she is so grumpy. I need to take all the cause of action estoppel stuff out as that is likely befuddling her and put her in a cranky mood.

This is what I submitted as defence and appears on the MCOL N9B form which I downloaded for my records:

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 and driver.

3. With regards to the POC in question, 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. 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’. Additionally a parking permit provided by the university/landowner was on display for the duration in question. Cause of action estoppel - reference to claim number M4KFK55

4. The Defendant respectfully submits that this claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(b) on the grounds of cause of action estoppel, as the facts, details and alleged contractual terms are identical to those in the prior claim No. M4KF7K55. 4a. Authorities to support the Defendant's position that subsequent claims are all estopped are: 1) Arnold V National Westminster Bank PLC [1991] 3 ALL ER 41. The court noted that ‘..cause of action estoppel applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties, or their privies and involving the same subject matter’. This case involves the same Claimant and Defendant, the same Car Park and the same manner in which the PCN was issued. 2) In Henderson v Henderson [1843]67 ER 313 the court noted the following…’when a matter becomes subject to litigation, i) the parties are required to advance their whole case, ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to reopen the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence or error.’

4c. The decision is still good law, and has been cited with approval numerous times, includingAldi Stores v WSP Group plc[2008] 1 WLR 748 andHenley v Bloom[2010] 1 WLR 1770. The Court is invited to strike out the second claim due to cause of action estoppel and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimants for filing two abusive and exaggerated claims.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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'.

9. 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'.

10. 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.

11. This claim is a waste of court resources and an indication of systemic abuse as 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)).

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81484638#Comment_81484638

I don't know why you used Chan and Akande. Wrong version.

Your POC did not lend itself to that para 3 and we'd never have told you to use that for the above POC. You should have had facts in your para 3.

I agree with the judge. You have only one sentence that's relevant to your case and you haven't admitted nor denied the allegations:

"Additionally a parking permit provided by the university/landowner was on display for the duration in question."

I'd cross the whole lot out in red and start again underneath, again with all new stuff in red (read the thread I signposted you to).

Pandemonium78

I'm confused because I used the text in bold below from one of the threads to construct the defence submitted on MCOL because the POC doesn't state the specific breach. It just says "in breach of the terms on the signs, and that the vehicle remained on the private property in breach of the T's and C's". That picture of the POC you've quoted is for the wrong PCN - that one is stayed. This Defence is for the other one from 20 Nov 24 see attached.

POC M1KF3J8D.jpg

"Paragraph 3 is yours to write!

3.  EITHER:

IF THE POC FAIL TO STATE THE BREACH (e.g. Civil Enforcement Ltd, Gladstones & Moorside cases currently all fail to specify an allegation) BRIEFLY REFER TO CEL v CHAN & CPMS v AKANDE. SEE LINK BELOW. This is all you need unless you have something very important to add, such as being a blue badge holder when shopping at a retail park, or were charging an EV (no contractual signs at those bays) or that you were a tenant/owner with rights or an expectation to park at a residential site:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81570648#Comment_81570648

Do I not just type out a new defence and attach the document to an email and send to the Court? I use Pages so there's no strike out in red function.

This was my original para 3:

3. Referring to the PoC: paragraph 1 is denied.  The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant.  Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 20/11/2024, as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper at the time of the alleged contravention, 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 £145 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.  The Claimant is put to strict proof on all of their allegations.  

i) A parking permit provided by the landowner was displayed in the vehicle in question for the duration in question.  The same had been previously displayed in the same car park and no PCN issued.  The Defendant was unaware of parking restrictions in place that excluded landowner provided permits.  The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked and the exit of the car park, showing the terms and conditions for use.  The small signage was not suitable to alert any motorist exiting the car park. 

ii) The PCN was appealed with the Claimant, who rejected the appeal stating “the opportunity to appeal has now passed”.  The Landowner also contacted the Claimant asking for the PCN to be cancelled and was told the same - “I have been in touch with First Parking and because you didn’t appeal within the 14 days, unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done”.    

Pandemonium78

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81916463#Comment_81916463

POC M1KF3J8D.jpg

That picture of the POC you've quoted is for the wrong PCN - that one is stayed.

This Defence is for the other one from 20 Nov 24.

Coupon-mad

"That picture of the POC you've quoted is for the wrong PCN - that one is stayed. This Defence is for the other one from 20 Nov 24 see attached."

Oh OK!

I agree leave in Chan and Akande but remove all the rest by red strike outs and add a new defence in red that follows the order: bow to what she wants to see. Give more detail about your reason & authority for being and parking on site.

Then you can add a few bits from the (even newer) template defence that I changed in February. You do need the points about HHJ Moloney and the point about landowner authority.

Pandemonium78

I've now received a letter from DCB Legal 8 months after Defence was emailed (advice at the time was to email rather than submit on MCOL), the letter says they intend to proceed with the claim after reviewing the contents of the Defence. The letter from the courts gave them 28 days to respond, but they've taken 8 months!

The claim status history on MCOL shows 3 case stay lifts:

"A claim was issued against you on 29/05/2025

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 05/06/2025 at 18:36:13

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 06/06/2025 at 08:05:37

Your defence was received on 14/07/2025

Case Stay Lifted on 08/09/2025

Case Stay Lifted on 27/02/2026

Case Stay Lifted on 16/03/2026"

Gr1pr

Standard stuff, study the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements near the top of the forum

They have clearly resurrected the other claim