DCB Legal defended claim v I Park Services

Gr1pr

If the claim form is about the same incident,  post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below and also post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

However,  if you have a new claim that isnt about the same incident,  start a new thread about it with the information etc

Its possible that the new court claim is about both pcns,  so might have 2 dates in the POC 

Coupon-mad

Please search the forum for the exact VAT acronym and you'll see why we never want to see that reply!

Your important 'job' in August is now this:

It's very important that people like you tell the Government that you have no faith in the parking industry and the DRA demands are a pathetic attempt to extort money.

It's cheaper and far better to defend a court claim and third parties adding any extra money is one of the major two factors that stop people engaging at pre-action stage (the other factor is using old addresses and refusing to reissue PCNs or hear disputes).

THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED.

DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND ENGINEERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN'.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

crazyvish

Gr1pr said:

If the claim form is about the same incident,  post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below and also post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

However,  if you have a new claim that isnt about the same incident,  start a new thread about it with the information etc

Its possible that the new court claim is about both pcns,  so might have 2 dates in the POC 

I received two PCNs within 24 hours at the same location, on separate occasions, for a similar contravention. As such, I created a single thread for context, but I am addressing each case separately, as previously advised on the forum.

For clarity, let's refer to them as Ref1 and Ref2. The claim form I received relates to Ref1, while the email response I received corresponds to Ref2.

I’ve attached a redacted image of the claim form for your review. 

Gr1pr

OK, complete the AOS online on Tuesday 29th July,  or later, on MCOL,  details are in the newbies sticky thread post 2

Meanwhile,  adapt paragraphs 2 & 3 in the new template defence and post them both below for critique 

The driver only stayed for a few minutes,  couldn't complete the offered contract,  so left promptly 

Ps, you didn't redact the password 

Coupon-mad

Ah, one is at claim stage so get that defence done, using the Template Defence.

Then don't forget to do the Public Consultation in August too. I'm sure you want to tell the Government about your double torture and how DCB completely failed to offer disputing consumers any level of debt resolution (that the industry spin their members do).

Gr1pr

They recently discontinued the following claim,  with similar POC 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6588595/i-park-dcb-legal-court-claim-2025-ws-stage/p1

Do not copy their defence paragraphs,  because it was slightly different to yours, but it may help with some of your case,  and bolster your confidence too

They are likely to discontinue in several months time,  before they have to pay the hearing fee 

crazyvish

Gr1pr said:

OK, complete the AOS online on Tuesday 29th July,  or later, on MCOL,  details are in the newbies sticky thread post 2

Meanwhile,  adapt paragraphs 2 & 3 in the new template defence and post them both below for critique 

The driver only stayed for a few minutes,  couldn't complete the offered contract,  so left promptly 

Ps, you didn't redact the password 

Thank you. Sure I will complete the AOS as suggested. I have been through few threads where KeithP mentioned:

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

I believe AOS is different to defence?

PCN Ref1: stopped for 14 mins; my "response to letter of claim" was ignored and I received the County Court claim form - I will need to complete AOS online and then prepare my defence in the meantime?

PCN Ref2: stopped for 3 mins; received an email reply (posted above) to my "response to letter of claim" and the claim has been put on hold for 30 days.

PS : I have seen the below sign displayed outside one of the stores during daytime during my recent visit. It stated that the first 30 minutes were free, provided the stay was validated either at the pay machine or in-store. However, at the time of the alleged contravention, the retail premises were closed and I didn't get to see this sign. Is it worth using this in any of the defence paragraphgs in anyway?

Coupon-mad said:

Then don't forget to do the Public Consultation in August too. I'm sure you want to tell the Government about your double torture and how DCB completely failed to offer disputing consumers any level of debt resolution (that the industry spin their members do).

Thanks, I have done that. I have sent my response to parking@communities.gov.uk as directed on the consulation webpage.

crazyvish

Thank you. Confirmation that I have now submitted the AOS for PCN Ref1.

crazyvish

I have now prepared a full Defence for my PCN Ref1

@Coupon-mad, @Gr1pr  Please could you help with any corrections. 

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but denies liability for the entirety of the claim.
2. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) are vague and fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rules 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3–7.5. The Defendant has not been provided with sufficient detail to understand or respond meaningfully to the case. Despite a request for more information via a Letter of Response to the Letter of Claim, no such particulars have been received.
3. The Defendant understands that the claim concerns a single parking event in which the vehicle is alleged to have stopped on private land for approximately 14 minutes. This short duration does not amount to a breach of contract, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of all elements required to prove liability.
4. The Claimant alleges a contractual charge for parking at a location where signage states “30 minutes free parking when using one of the stores.” However, at the time of the alleged contravention, all stores at the location were closed, and therefore it was not possible to comply with the stated conditions for free parking.
5. The signage offered a conditional contract: free parking was available only upon entering one of the stores. If that condition could not be fulfilled due to the businesses being closed, then:

• No contract could be formed, as there was no offer capable of acceptance;
•  Any attempt to impose a charge despite this is misleading and unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

6.The Defendant avers that no alternative terms (e.g. paid parking rates, charges for non-customers, or penalties for stopping) were clearly offered or communicated on signage at the material time. As such, the Defendant could not have understood that a charge would apply to a short stop outside of opening hours.

7.This situation constitutes either a frustrated contract or an unfair term, as it relies on a consumer’s ability to perform a condition (use of a store) that was impossible at the relevant time. The Court is invited to find that no legitimate contract was formed, or that any charge arising from such signage is unenforceable and in breach of consumer contract regulations.

8. The Defendant did stop for approximately 14 minutes, but this was well within the advertised 30-minute free allowance for customers. The fact that stores were closed made compliance impossible, and no alternative terms were offered. The Defendant reasonably believed that no contract existed or that no charge would apply under those circumstances.

9. The Claimant appears to rely on Manual Number Plate Recognition (MNPR) or a single observation to claim a stop duration of 14 minutes. However, the Claimant is put to strict proof of this duration, and whether the entire time was stationary or in contravention of any contract.

10. The Defendant asserts that the parking charge is unfair and disproportionate under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, especially for such a short period. The charge does not represent any genuine pre-estimate of loss, particularly as the site is known to have been previously used without charge or restriction.

11. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA), which governs how parking companies can pursue registered keepers. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) must be served within specific timeframes and contain prescribed information. The Defendant avers that POFA compliance has not been achieved.

12. Furthermore, the £60 “debt recovery” or “damages” add-on is unlawful and must be struck out. This is supported by:

• Excel v Wilkinson (2020): Judge Jackson ruled such fees were “not recoverable”.
• Holt v DCB Legal (2021): The court ruled £60 added to a £100 parking charge was “a disguised penalty”.

13. The Defendant denies any liability and puts the Claimant to strict proof of:

• Clear, visible, and legally compliant signage on the date in question,
• The formation of a contract,
• The exact duration of the stop and its nature (e.g. loading, emergency, waiting),
• POFA compliance (if pursuing the Defendant as keeper),
• Entitlement to charge an additional £60.

14. The Defendant reserves the right to amend or supplement this defence should further evidence be provided by the Claimant or as the proceedings progress.

15. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:

• Dismiss the claim in its entirety,
• Strike out the additional £60,
• Award costs to the Defendant for dealing with a meritless and inflated claim.

Gr1pr

That defence,  if it is a defence,  is not the standard defence template posted by coupon mad 3 weeks ago near the top of the forum,  I told you to adapt the new template defence last week 

I definitely won't comment on any defence that doesn't follow the template, so didn't and won't be reading it,  plus it wont fit in the MCOL defence box IMHO either 

Defences are short and concise,  submitted on MCOL now, not by email,  no longer the old KeithP advice from months ago

No offence intended,  just being up front about it, we are volunteers,  not a legal service,  sorry