Received Claim Form from Civil National Business Centre - Total Parking Solutions & DCB Legal

AM111_2

Hi there,

I wonder if you can help me out. I received a claim form from the Civil National Business Centre, for a parking charge originally issued by Total Parking Solutions, now represented by DCB Legal.

The original charge was for overstaying by 10-15 mins at a village supermarket/post office. We shop there multiple times per week, maybe I shopped a little too long, I also had a 11 month old with me at the time prone to unexpected blowouts, etc.etc. Have no idea where the signage even is in said car park. Only discovered the terms and limits when I received the charge.

Unfortunately I didn't appeal, so got all the debt collection letters and now they are taking me to court. I also tried to ask the supermarket itself to dismiss the charge, and they were useless and said it was nothing to do with them because it's a separate parking company, etc.

Anyway, I realise I now need to acknowledge the claim and prepare a court defence. The information on here is very helpful if a little overwhelming, and I wonder if you can help me with a couple of things:

1. I wanted to see the full history of the case on MCOL, and when i tried to login, it goes to the gov site where it asks for my government gateway login. Is this the right place and the right thing to do? Is this ok to tie this to my gov gateway account?

2. I understand I have to submit a defence letter and that I should use the email address rather than MCOL itself. I have found a long defence template letter on here, but I can't find the list of 17 different reasons why this charge/claim might be invalid. It is referenced in multiple posts as sitting in the Newbie's thread, but I cannot see it. I have looked at the second post in the thread, and there are some specific templates for cases where it is a private parking spot or the defendant was a residential visitor, but I cannot see any lists of reasons for invalid charges for typical cases.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Thank you in advance.

Gr1pr

Yes go to MCOL via your government gateway account 

No letter, no paperwork,  your defence will be a pdf attachment emailed to claim.responses,  at the CNBC, when completed 

Use the standard defence template in the defence template thread in announcements,  adapting just a few paragraphs , checking your homework on here, bearing in mind that you will be slotting your paragraphs into the template,  replacing template paragraphs 2 & 3 

What is the issue date on the top right of the claim form   ?

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

AM111_2

Gr1pr said:

Yes go to MCOL via your government gateway account 

No letter, no paperwork,  your defence will be a pdf attachment emailed to claim.responses,  at the CNBC, when completed 

Use the standard defence template in the defence template thread in announcements,  adapting just a few paragraphs , checking your homework on here, bearing in mind that you will be slotting your paragraphs into the template,  replacing template paragraphs 2 & 3 

What is the issue date on the top right of the claim form   ?

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

Hi, thank you for your response. I had a very intense work week last week so am just attending to this now.

1. I went to MCOL and handled the AoS.

2. To answer your questions:
          a) Issue date is 23 June 2025.
          b) Image of redacted PoC is attached.

I will start looking at the defence letter in the next day or two.

Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

Very easy to defend using the template but you may want to wait as I will be shortening it this week and changing the advice to tell people to put the defence in in MCOL not by email.

AM111_2

Coupon-mad said:

Very easy to defend using the template but you may want to wait as I will be shortening it this week and changing the advice to tell people to put the defence in in MCOL not by email.

Thanks for this. I waited and have now drafted my defence, which I have pasted below. Claim was issued 23 June, so I guess I have till 26/27 July to respond? If you could have a quick read and tell me what you think / answer my Qs, I would be incredibly grateful. Section 3, added by me, is in bold. Questions follow.

"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. The defendant denies a ‘breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: The Vehicle Exceeded The Maximum Stay Time’.

The claim is denied because entry signage at the site in question is grossly inadequate. After re-visiting the site, there is no visible signage on entry outlining any restrictions on parking for any customer entering the car park from either direction. Within the car park, the two signs that do exist are tiny, with tiny writing, far apart, and not visible or legible from most parking spots. As a result, the defendant was not aware of any restrictions on parking duration.

The facts outlined by the defendant put the claimant in violation of the BPA Code Of practice version 8 2020 and indicate that the defendant never entered a contract.

It should be added that it is already shoddy behaviour to issue this extortionate parking charge to a customer who allegedly overstayed their free car parking by all of 18 minutes. But it is disgraceful when you then consider that the defendant a) is a regular shopper at the store – and please note, the fact that a regular customer could remain unaware of these restrictions for years further illustrates how severely inadequate the signage is, b) had with her an 11 month old baby, hence was subject to unexpected disasters and delays, nappy related and otherwise, c) as a new mother sometimes has urgent toilet needs, which at this village supermarket means running to a local pub or café to use their bathrooms, and often experiences unexpected delays to shopping trips for an array of reasons.

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))'."

 

Key questions:

1. Is section 3 likely to be too long when I put it into the form? If so, should I trim my portion or bits of the template?

2. Can I upload evidence, namely photos showing the appalling signage, baby birth certificate, regular store receipts, etc.? If this is my defence, surely I need to be able to substantiate my claims, otherwise it is just he said / she said, and the claim will inevitably progress?

It seems to me that a judge is most likely to reject this claim based on the non-existent / ridiculous signage, along with the excessiveness and pettiness of the charge, especially to a regular customer and young mother (and frankly that's the half of it). Especially having read posters on here saying that judges often skip the template portions and only read the custom detail (in which case, why bother including the other stuff??? Notwithstanding that it all looks totally relevant to me and frankly the specific case details shouldn't even be required...)

Huge thanks.

Coupon-mad

Answers:

1. It's too long. Trim it by removing this:

"nappy related and otherwise, c) as a new mother sometimes has urgent toilet needs, which at this village supermarket means running to a local pub or café to use their bathrooms, and often experiences unexpected delays to shopping trips for an array of reasons."


2. Evidence comes later, at WS stage. See the NEWBIES thread second post 'IMPORTANT: know what happens when'.

AM111_2

Coupon-mad said:

Answers:

1. It's too long. Trim it by removing this:

"nappy related and otherwise, c) as a new mother sometimes has urgent toilet needs, which at this village supermarket means running to a local pub or café to use their bathrooms, and often experiences unexpected delays to shopping trips for an array of reasons."


2. Evidence comes later, at WS stage. See the NEWBIES thread second post 'IMPORTANT: know what happens when'.

Thank you. I re-read as suggested and I am clearer.

I was just trying to submit but have one more question - should I not be making a counter claim? I have seen posts from others doing it, and it seems it would be the best way to deter these people from running these scams so aggressively. I have spent enough time reading and drafting and gathering evidence and getting to grips with all of this, and there will be more if it comes to witness statements and evidence submission and potential hearings. It seems I have to decide if making a counter claim now, when I submit defence.

Regarding the text, I adjusted and settled on the following. There were also plenty of lines left to insert line breaks and make it all neater:

"3. The defendant denies a ‘breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: The Vehicle Exceeded The Maximum Stay Time’. The claim is denied because entry signage at the site in question is grossly inadequate. After re-visiting the site, there is no visible signage on entry outlining any restrictions on parking for any customer entering the car park from either direction. Within the car park, the signs that do exist are tiny with tiny writing, unclear, far apart, and not visible or legible from most parking spots. As a result, the defendant was not aware of restrictions on parking duration. These facts outlined by the defendant put the claimant in violation of the BPA Code Of Practice version 8 2020 and indicate that the defendant never entered a contract.

4. It should be added that it is already shoddy behaviour to issue this extortionate parking charge to a customer who allegedly overstayed their free car parking by all of 18 minutes. But it is disgraceful when you then consider that the defendant a) is a regular shopper at the store – and please note, the fact that a regular customer could remain unaware of these restrictions for years further illustrates how severely inadequate the signage is, b) is a recent mother and had with her an 11 month old baby, hence was subject to unexpected disasters and delays."

Coupon-mad

Yep that's good but I see no grounds to counterclaim. It wouldn't have a lawful basis. They'll discontinue by Xmas anyway.

Now read this message and please prepare to join us to do the Public Consultation once we've discussed it in August:

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

It's vital the Government hears from Defendants. Please bookmark the main thread linked in that link.

Come back in August to take part. We need to drown out the lying drivel from the parking industry and their relatives posing as ordinary motorist consumers.