UKPC DCB Legal court claim 2025

Coupon-mad

emss said:

@Gr1pr thank you! I see that it explains what to do with a letter before claim, however i have received an actual claim form. Does the same apply (sending an email to parking firm solicitor)?

The Newbie post says:
PLEASE NOTE THE ABOVE IS THE ADVICE TO RESPOND TO A LETTER OF / BEFORE CLAIM, THIS IS NOT WHAT TO DO IF YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A CLAIM FORM

Errr... and then if you read on...! 

emss

Found it, thanks

emss

Hiya, i just received a second court claim form, which seems to be for the same thing only for more pcn;s - this one says 30 . Im confused, what should i do, the same as i did with the first one?

Coupon-mad

Have you defended the first one now?

Show us the defence you put in.

Start a new thread showing us this second claim. Do you mean there are 30 PCNs on it? We need a separate thread.

emss

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 Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the

allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability

for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

 

2. It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the

Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a

contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and

valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied

that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the

Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty

upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA

introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and

'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to

examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open

dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this

Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On

the limited information available, this case appears to be

no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with

contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the

right to amend the defence if details of the contract are

provided. However, the court is invited to strike this claim

out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

 

3. The Defendant has little or no

knowledge or recollection of events on the date stated. The

vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant

was the registered keeper.

3.1 Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little or no recollection of the days in question. The Defendant has parked in this car park many times with evidence of transactions available to submit when required. The Defendant confirms paying machine issues where one day it would work the next day it wouldn’t, and change of payment methods at the time, resulting in unawareness 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, and what was available was not clear, or changed every few days

 

4. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis

of prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant

is put to strict proof of their standing to sue under a

landowner contract and the terms/scope and dates/details of

the parking management service, including the contract

itself, all updates and schedules and a map of the site

boundary as set by the landowner (not an unverified Google

Maps mock-up).

 

5. In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving

that the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a

strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere

compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any

relevant obligation(s) and of the charge itself. None of

these requirements have been demonstrated and this charge is

a penalty. ParkingEye v Beavis ‘2015’ UKSC67 is fully

distinguished. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198

of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd

ChD ‘2011’ EWHC 4023(QB) a finding unaffected by Beavis. In

Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty ‘whose decision was ratified by the

CoA’ held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' further

inflating a £75 ‘discounted to £37.50’ parking charge to £135

was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters

and 'would appear to be penal'.

 

6. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of

Housing, Communities and Local Government ‘MHCLG’ began.

The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the

unjust enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery

agents (DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of

the last Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money

from motorists’ appears likely. The MHCLG have identified

that the added sums are not part of the parking related

charges: “profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher

than the profits reported 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”.

 

7. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum

parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant

to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

'POFA' it also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the

explanatory notes to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 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’)."

 

Coupon-mad

Ah OK, so you lost paras 8-10 of the template which means you have omitted the usual point about no landowner authority?

Don't do that with the other case on your new thread. That defence point is important.

Le_Kirk

You could combine your paras 3 & 3.1 as they are effectively making the same point.  If you didn't see any prominent signs, how could you then go on to describe the small sign in detail and know that it was changed every few days?

emss

The signs weren't changed, the pay and display machines were changed. I maybe didn't word it very well

Gr1pr

Which is why we advised you to speak to Contestor legal 

I am glad to see that C.L. are now professionally dealing with both cases