Another DCB legal claim form

makoali123

This arrived along with another claim form around the same time please see my other post https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6612749/dcb-legal-claim-form/p1?new=1

I notice this one isn’t signed as my others have been. Can this be used in defence?

Any advice on how to structure my defence for the template appreciated.

thank you 

Gr1pr

Do the AOS online this weekend 

Use the template defence,  with minor changes in paragraphs 2 & 3

makoali123

thank you, I will post my paragraphs two and three here before i submit. Appreciate your help. 

Coupon-mad

I notice this one isn’t signed as my others have been. Can this be used in defence?

Yes it's odd. I spotted this in another claim yesterday and have no idea why the CNBC are now serving unsigned claim forms!

They've added a new tick-box above the £column on the right, about vulnerability so this is the CNBC's creation. Are you sure the name of the signatory isn't on the back, or the next page?

makoali123

You are correct, it is signed on the back. Thank you!

makoali123

Good Evening, please see my template defence. Any advice is really appreciated. 

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:

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. 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 14/05/2024, as alleged.  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.

3.1 Due to the length of time, the Defendant has no recollection of the day in question. The Defendant has parked in this car park many times while shopping at Monks Cross shopping Centre with evidence of transactions available to submit when required. The Defendant was unaware of parking restrictions in place. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions. The Defendant works locally and often goes shopping more than once at this car park. This very much may be a double dip ANPR error.

Cause of Action estoppel

4.0      Being legally represented, the Claimant knows, or should know, that by detaching or allowing to remain detached, elements of alleged debts and issuing separate claims, each which rely upon essentially duplicate particulars and facts, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. 

The Claimant has issued two claims with identical Particulars with the exception of the Parking Charge issue date.  

Claim 1 xxxxxx which was issued on 30/05/2025  - relates to PCNs issued on the 14/05/2025.

Claim 2 yyyyyy which was issued on 10/06/2025 - relates to a PCN issued on the 14/05/2024, relying on the same facts.

4.1      In 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 having involved the same subject matter.”

4.2     In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:

(i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;

(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open 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;

(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.

4.3      The Claimant filing the first claim and failing to advance the whole case, any cause of action was immediately extinguished for any other similar fact Parking Charges against the Defendant. The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same.  The Defendant invites the court to dismiss the second claim under the grounds of cause of action estoppel.  In the alternative, the Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined together, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

Then the rest of the template

Thanks for your work guys

Coupon-mad

Fine except these dates can't be right:

Claim 1 xxxxxx which was issued on 30/05/2025  - relates to PCNs issued on the 14/05/2025.

Claim 2 yyyyyy which was issued on 10/06/2025 - relates to a PCN issued on the 14/05/2024, relying on the same facts.

makoali123

amended and sent thank you, I also noticed  couple of typos e,g PCNs issues rather than a PCN

makoali123

I have just received a second letter of claim for this matter. Surely they are not going to try again? 

Coupon-mad

makoali123 said:

I have just received a second letter of claim for this matter. Surely they are not going to try again? 

Yes if it's about different PCNs!

While your cases are quiet, get your revenge: please read this message and do the vital, current Public Consultation:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81552148/#Comment_81552148

It's important that the Government hears from people with unfair charges who are facing horrific, scary court claims. You should respond and tell them that DCB Legal gave broken up the PCNs across three claims (attach proof - pictures of the letters) which has tripled the costs and CCJ risk and is dominating your life this year.

The link shows the two vital points to concentrate on, IMHO:

- banning 'fee' add-ons completely.

- making sure a new SINGLE appeals service replaces POPLA and the IAS which are seen as not fully independent and involved in a 'race to the bottom'.

Click through to the main thread about the Consultation, Do not be deterred by the fact that some questions are for the parking industry only.

We are currently discussing how to respond. Please join us in doing this Consultation before it closes in three weeks. This is your one chance to make a difference re the proper regulation of private parking.