UKPC , DCB LEGAL court claim

jrc123

to further add i didnt recieve a letter before claim or headed with that term in anyway just a letter of claim i reicved in December 2025 is that correct?

Coupon-mad

If this is a DCB Legal claim just use the Template Defence, top of the forum.

jrc123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81885947#Comment_81885947

HI @Coupon-mad hope all is well! We did this rodeo once a couple years back!

Can i check its this post you mentioned: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/039-template-039-defence-suggestion-nb-ultimately-your-choice-of-defence-wording-is-your-own/p1

Where can i find the template? My case is DCB legal chasing me on behalf of UKPC

thanks for the help and directioning

Coupon-mad

We can do this again! Yes you will find it there.

Ignore all the replies & pages bloating it.

jrc123

@cou

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886172#Comment_81886172

Can i check its starts like this the post for my defence ( think this is a newish post since i last did things):

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'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at doubl

Le_Kirk

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81885853#Comment_81885853

But what was the date of issue of the N1SDT claim form. Tell me this and I can give you a deadline for your defence.

jrc123

Hi @Le_Kirk hope all is well!

The claim form has an issued date of 12 Feb 2026, i did the awknowledge yesterday on the 15 feb. When would i need to send my defence by?

Also am i right the template @Coupon-mad mentioned starts with:

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'. 

found on this thread:

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

thanks for the help

Gr1pr

Deadline date is 4pm on 17th March

Post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first

Follow the advice in the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements

Edit your thread title to something more suitable

UKPC, DCB LEGAL court claim 2026

jrc123

My Defence 1st draft:

Defence

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were an unexpected shock. 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 a breach of any prominent term, and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as site managers) 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 Particulars.
2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, liability is denied.
3. The driver was a customer at Gallions Reach Shopping Park, a large retail complex with around 2,000 free parking spaces. The Defendant was visiting shops at the site and parked lawfully in a standard bay. The car park was less than half full, the vehicle caused no obstruction, danger or inconvenience to any person, and no loss was suffered by the landowner or any retailer.

3A. The Claimant alleges that the vehicle was “not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.” The Defendant avers that any such positioning was trivial and de minimis, done purely to allow safe access and egress for a newborn child. The Defendant’s conduct was reasonable in the circumstances and cannot amount to a contractual breach or agreement to pay a penalty of £100 or more.

3B. The signage at Gallions Reach Shopping Park did not prominently warn that minor misalignment within a bay would result in a parking charge. Any purported term was buried in small print, and the Defendant avers that the Claimant’s terms were neither transparent nor prominent, contrary to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015), Schedule 2 paragraphs 6, 10, 14 and 18. Under section 71 CRA 2015, the court has a duty to consider the fairness of such terms and consumer notices. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the signage relied upon and its prominence at the material time.

3C. The Claimant states that it is entitled to recover a parking charge and damages but has failed to provide any evidence of its contractual or proprietary interest in the land. The Defendant avers that the Claimant acts merely as an agent and is put to strict proof of full landowner authority, including a contemporaneous, unredacted copy of the contract with the landholder showing that it has the right to enter contracts and to litigate in its own name.

• 4. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Consequently, the Claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle.

• 5. The Particulars of Claim (“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.

• 6. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the PoC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.

• 7. The PoC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach; and (c) how the purported and unspecified “damages” arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum.

• 8. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form. The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity. The Defendant trusts that the Court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per PD16.3.

• 9.The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: “If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.’”

• 10. No further particulars have been filed and, to the Defendant’s knowledge, no application asking the Court for more time to serve or for relief from sanctions has been filed either.

• 11.In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant’s Solicitors’ gift to properly plead the claim at the outset — and the claim being for a modest sum well within the small claims limit — the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective for a Judge to grant the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the claim.

• 12. The Defendant’s conduct was entirely reasonable. Parking slightly wide to allow safe access for a newborn child falls under the principle of de minimis non curat lex — the law does not concern itself with trifles. It is inconceivable that the landowner or any retailer at Gallions Reach Shopping Park would have suffered loss or damage warranting such a claim. The Claimant’s pursuit of £266.04 is disproportionate, punitive, and contrary to both the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the principles set out in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which confirm that charges must serve a legitimate interest and not be excessive or unconscionable.

13. In all the circumstances, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike out or dismiss the claim. Alternatively, the Defendant invites the Court to order the Claimant to file and serve full Particulars of Claim which meet the requirements of CPR 16.4 and the Practice Directions, together with copies of the alleged contract, signage, and landowner authority relied upon.

Anything i should change or add?

jrc123

if i should remove anything do let me know thanks!