UKPC , DCB LEGAL court claim

Coupon-mad

You had the Template Defence yet you haven't used it?

jrc123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886661#Comment_81886661

hi @Coupon-mad is this the defense template which i need to update with my details?

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 double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

^^ADD 'and driver' if admitting that.

if you were not driving and believe the NTK was non-POFA, add that fact.

Change 'registered keeper' to hirer or lessee if it's a company or lease/fleet car (you are not the rk in that case).





Except in cases with no breach specified (see link in post 1 above) paragraph 3 is yours to write and the finished defence is your own work.

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. THE LINK TO SOME SUGGESTED WORDING IS ALREADY IN THE POST ABOVE. 

OR

If they DO state the breach in the POC (in-house ParkingEye claims, also BW Legal and most DCB Legal cases except for ParkingEye or CP Plus) then you must respond to the allegation.

Add BRIEF details as your para 3, e.g.

- if you didn't get any letters or it was years ago & you can't recall if you were driving, say that. ONLY IF TRUE


- you appealed and they refused it?


- the machines or app weren't working?

- was it a double dip ANPR error?

- or a keying error, were you staff/lived there with a right to park?

- saw no signs because they were sparsely placed or it was dark?

- was the driver disabled, elderly or pregnant and needed more time?

(BE CONCISE, OR YOUR DEFENCE WON'T FIT IN THE MCOL DEFENCE BOX - SO TEST IT, CHECK AND REDUCE YOUR LINE-COUNT!

IF YOU NEED TO, YOU CAN REMOVE PARA 10. NOT A PROBLEM AND ULTIMATELY, IT'S YOUR DECISION HOW TO DEFEND).

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 Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and

(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 references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control '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))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes 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))'.

Gr1pr

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886532#Comment_81886532

Correct, adapt paragraph 2 & 3 in the 10 paragraph template

And reply to the above requests, posting the redacted POC and alter the thread title too

Le_Kirk

Hi @Le_Kirk hope all is well!

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

With an issue date of 12/02/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 17/03/26

What you have posted above is not the template defence; find that and use it.

Also, as requested by @Gr1pr we could do with sight of the POC and then we can advise which of the defence templates to use.

jrc123

DEFENCE

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 double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis held that an £85 parking charge already covered all “costs of enforcement” (including DVLA lookup and an automated letter chain). The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice, and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene, and the court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieval of material evidence difficult and highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below, and admits only to being the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant was not the driver and has never been provided with evidence of the identity of the driver. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) failed to comply with the mandatory wording and timescales of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), and therefore no keeper liability can arise.

3. The Particulars of Claim allege that the vehicle was “not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.” The Defendant was not the driver and can only rely on limited recollection and second-hand information. The Defendant understands that the site in question, Gallions Reach Shopping Park, offers free customer parking and that any alleged parking irregularity would have caused no loss or obstruction. The Claimant is put to strict proof that adequate signage existed, that a contract was formed with the driver, and that any term was breached.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached, but to form a contract there must be offer, acceptance and valuable consideration (absent here). The Consumer Rights Act 2015, section 71, mandates a fairness test. Schedule 2 (examples 6, 10, 14 and 18) identifies unfair terms that are disproportionate or not prominently displayed. The Claimant’s signage fails this test. Strict proof is required of contemporaneous photographs and wording.

5. DVLA keeper data is released only to private operators holding written landowner authority. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its standing to sue and of an unredacted landowner contract showing the parties, scope, duration and site boundary.

6.To impose a parking charge there must be (i) a legitimate interest extending beyond compensation and (ii) adequate notice of the charge and obligation. None have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising from a concealed pitfall or trap and is fully distinguishable from Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to:
 (i) paragraphs 98, 100, 193 and 198 of Beavis, confirming that £85 covered all operational costs; and
 (ii) ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores, where inflating a £75 charge to £135 was held disproportionate and penal. The same reasoning applies to this inflated £266.04 claim.

8.The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 was introduced to curb rogue practices by parking operators and debt recovery agents. Government consultations described such add-on fees as “extortionate and unfair.” The Claimant’s conduct falls squarely within that criticism.

9. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the claim exceeds the maximum recoverable sum and constitutes unlawful double recovery. Paragraph 4(5) and Explanatory Note 221 make clear that a keeper may not be pursued for more than the amount stated on the Notice to Driver. As no liability transfers to the keeper in this case, the claim must fail.

10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs under CPR 27.14 and a finding of unreasonable conduct with further costs under CPR 46.5. Parking claims now comprise a large proportion of small-claims cases, most discontinued before hearing, indicating a deliberate business model of vexatious litigation. The Claimant’s exaggerated and poorly-pleaded claim warrants strike-out and cost sanctions.

for points 2 and 3 i have said i am the registered keeper only (my wife is),

when we were parking we were with our new born and needed extra space to exist the vehicle, for all of the appeals i used the templates as per the forum.

I complained to the landowner JLL and told them full story without admitting who was driving incase this was relayed externally to the parking company - they rejected all appeals too.

Any changes or recommendations greatly appreciated @Le_Kirk @Coupon-mad @Gr1pr

Gr1pr

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886532#Comment_81886532

Please comply with the above 2 requests

jrc123

Hi @Gr1pr

Confirmed and acknowledged the defence deadline. I plan to upload it as soon as it’s approved here. Would it be okay to send it earlier, or should I wait? I just don’t want to forget, which is why I’d prefer to send it as soon as it’s approved?

please see POC as request which has been redacted.

Gr1pr

Page 1 states that the white bay markings were very poor, I assume faded, seeing as the original picture link is dead, since repainted, but no mention of poor bay markings despite the allegation in the POC

Coupon-mad

Yes you should definitely add a line putting them to proof of clearly marked bay lines.

1505grandad

An observation as the Defence will be signed under a SoT:-

In the draft D on the previous page you stated:-

"The Defendant was visiting shops at the site and parked lawfully in a standard bay."

Yet in the latest you categorically state:-

"The Defendant was not the driver ….."