Feedback request on my defence to DCB court action - Myrtle street carpark liverpool

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

Background: used this carpark many times and it was free (to the best of my knowledge and Google searches) Myrtle street carpark in Liverpool, owned by David Charles brewitt and Alan James Beer.

I was one of the first to get fined under the new system, I parked at night, briefly (to grab a hot drink) and left. The new sign was not lit and up in the trees and out of my eyeline. I genuinely didn't know it was now a paid carpark (it's a row of spaces outside a row of shops). I have a photo from Google maps in July 2024 showing no signs, and from looking on reddit it was around this time it changed, I was one of the unlucky first.

I got the fine and appealed immediately, but was flat out denied, I believe I made a fair case and believe honestly it should of been accepted. I wrote to the car park owner and was ignored.

During this time my dad was dying of cancer and I genuinely forgot during the time window I needed to pay the £60.

I got the dreaded letter from DCB now seeking £170, I went back and forth with them many times explaining my dad had just died and I was mentally and financially vulnerable, they just kept repeating the same standard reply £170 or nothing. 

I then got the DCB solicitors, I explained again the case law around their £170 making it unfair and offering the £60, they didn't reply or acknowledge my emails. I told them again, I was mentally vulnerable and their letters were highly distressing me.

Now I have the county court claim, I don't have the mental energy to fight this after watching my dad die, genuinely, but I have begged these people and companies to have some compassion during such a vulnerable time and I've been flat out ignored. I won't roll over at this point and I will fight this. I'll go in front of a judge if I have to. 

I have drafted this defence, I will file the AOS today. I was hoping for feedback at this stage, I've read as much as possible and defended this as much as possible too, and on principle will continue to fight it for what they've tried to do to someone in one of their darkest times of their life, over 10 minutes in a car parking spot, in a newly changed to paid carpark spot, in the dark. This is causing me panic attacks over it, but they've pushed and pushed me into a corner and I have to fight back against these sharks as they are now seeking £262.

Could I ask (with a lot of gratitude) for feedback on my defence and am I within my rights to counter claim for distress for them ignoring my requests for consideration for my circumstances and can I withdraw my offer of £60 as this was made to avoid court, and now we are at that stage ? 

Thank you sincerely.

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle XX. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim.

2. The alleged contravention relates to a car park which had previously offered free parking. Unbeknownst to the Defendant, the terms had recently changed to a paid model. The visit in question occurred during hours of darkness, and the Defendant was unaware of any new signage indicating such a change. Therefore, the Defendant avers that no contract was formed.

3. The signage was inadequate, newly introduced, and not sufficiently lit to be seen or understood, particularly at night. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any signage at the material time met the requirements of the British Parking Association Code of Practice and was clearly visible, legible, and provided fair notice of the parking terms.

4. The Defendant had been under significant emotional distress at the time, due to the terminal illness and impending death of a close family member. The Defendant has made this clear in repeated correspondence with the Claimant's representatives, yet they have continued to pursue the claim with an aggressive and uncompassionate tone, exacerbating the Defendant’s mental health and financial hardship.

5. The Defendant made a reasonable offer of £60 in an effort to resolve the matter without court proceedings. This was ignored. Due to the distress caused by the Claimant’s conduct, the Defendant now formally withdraws this offer. The Claimant's continued pursuit during a time of bereavement and poor mental health has caused significant additional suffering and amounts to unreasonable conduct.

6. The Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16 7.3-7.5. They disclose no clear cause of action or identifiable contract, terms, or explanation as to how the sum has been calculated.

7. The amount claimed is an unconscionable and exaggerated sum. The added costs are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and have been disallowed in multiple County Court judgments. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the added costs and to scrutinise the Claimant’s conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

8. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all.

DE_612183

Point 2 - can you prove the car park was badly lit - can you get photos in the dark of the hard to read signs?

If this is DCBL there is a very good chance they will discontinue anyway.

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

Thank you for getting back to me.

Interestingly, I believe the Claimant’s own ANPR photo demonstrates how dark it was at the time of the alleged incident, and how unclear or invisible the signage was. The sign in question was positioned high up in the trees and not easily visible, especially in the dark in November.

I located the same area on Google Street View (July 2024 imagery), which shows no signs, as this was before the change but shows the trees where the sign was then put up?

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

Here are the images I have:

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

Adding my amended response here and would be super grateful and any feedback, ty! 

DEFENCE

1.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 in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The 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." The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s), and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond.

3. Regarding the POC served by DCB Legal, the Defendant notes that the Particulars fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16 in that they disclose no cause of action. The Defendant is unable to discern the conduct alleged to have given rise to the claim. The Defendant was unaware of any contravention at the time. The location in question was previously free to use and is adjacent to Council parking that remains free after 9PM, which further contributed to the confusion. There was no clear or prominent signage alerting motorists to a change in parking terms. The Defendant believes the signage failed to meet the standards required to form a contract or adequately inform drivers of any obligation to pay.

Unclear Signage and Parking Terms:

4.  The Defendant did not observe any clear or prominent signage upon entering, parking, or exiting the site. The signage was not visible or legible from within the vehicle and failed to communicate any material terms or parking charges in a manner compliant with consumer legislation.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of the signage terms as they appeared on the date of the alleged contravention.

5.  The Defendant asserts that a witness from within the vehicle will also give evidence that they were not made aware of any specific parking terms, conditions, or charges. This lack of clear and accessible signage prevents the formation of any binding contract, whether with the driver or any other party, and is contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the expectations set by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

6.  The Defendant notes that the location was previously free to use, and any new or changed terms should have been made extremely prominent to alert regular users. No evidence has been provided by the Claimant to show that adequate notice of new charging terms was given. The signage was inadequate, newly introduced, and not sufficiently lit to be seen or understood, particularly at night. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any signage at the material time met the requirements of the British Parking Association Code of Practice and was clearly visible, legible, and provided fair notice of the parking terms. Please refer to the attached image, supplied by the claimant, showing no evidence of a clearly lit sign, and the hours of darkness. 

Petition Against the Car Park:

7.  The Defendant refers to an ongoing public petition against this specific car park due to the widespread issues regarding the unfair imposition of parking charges, inadequate signage, and lack of transparency. This highlights that the Defendant's experience is not isolated.

Breach of FCA guidelines on vulnerable individuals

8. The Defendant had been under significant emotional distress at the time, due to the terminal illness and impending death of a close family member. The Defendant has made this clear in repeated correspondence with the Claimant's representatives, yet they have continued to pursue the claim with an aggressive and uncompassionate tone, exacerbating the Defendant’s mental health and financial hardship in breach of FCA guidance on treating vulnerable individuals.

Please see attached screen grab evidence of contacting the firm advising of the offer and the personal circumstances affecting the Defendant, which went unanswered.

9. The Defendant made a reasonable offer of £60 in an effort to resolve the matter without court proceedings. This was ignored. Due to the distress caused by the Claimant’s conduct, the Defendant now formally withdraws this offer. The Claimant's continued pursuit during a time of bereavement and poor mental health has caused significant additional suffering and amounts to unreasonable conduct.

Over-Inflated Charges:

Exaggerated Claim and 'Market Failure':

10.  The Defendant notes that this claim is brought under terms that have been condemned in the Government’s 2022 Parking Code of Practice (currently withdrawn pending review). The Code criticises the industry’s inflated charges, misleading signage, and aggressive tactics.

Failure to Offer Adequate ADR:

11.  The Defendant contends that the Claimant failed to provide a fair or impartial route to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The IAS (Independent Appeals Service), used by the Claimant’s trade body, is not a fair or transparent appeals process. This failure to provide an accessible resolution method is unreasonable.

Lack of Authority:

12.  The Defendant asserts that the Claimant lacks standing to pursue this claim in their own name. The Defendant requires the Claimant to produce strict proof of their contractual rights with the landowner and their authorisation to issue and enforce parking charges at the site.

POFA 2012 and Keeper Liability:

13.  If the Claimant is attempting to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, they are put to strict proof of full compliance with its requirements. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to meet these requirements and therefore cannot recover the charge from the keeper.

Conclusion:

14.  For all of the above reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed. The signage was unclear, no contract was entered into, the charge is excessive and punitive, and the Claimant lacks the authority and evidence to support their claim. The Defendant also reserves the right to seek costs for unreasonable conduct by the Claimant in pursuing a claim without merit.

Statement of Truth:

15.  The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:

Coupon-mad

No, use the template defence. I can tell that neither draft so far is using it.

I'm so sorry to read about your Dad. Do you have email evidence of all of this contact, or was it all by phone?

I got the dreaded letter from DCB seeking £170, I went back and forth with them many times explaining my dad had just died and I was mentally and financially vulnerable, they just kept repeating the same standard reply £170 or nothing.

I then got the DCB solicitors, I explained again the case law around their £170 making it unfair and offering the £60, they didn't reply or acknowledge my emails. I told them again, I was mentally vulnerable and their letters were highly distressing me.

Now I have the county court claim, I don't have the mental energy to fight this after watching my dad die, genuinely, but I have begged these people and companies to have some compassion during such a vulnerable time and I've been flat out ignored. I won't roll over at this point and I will fight this. I'll go in front of a judge if I have to. 

Car1980

Remember the code of practice requires additional signs to be installed for 4 months advising that the terms and conditions have changed. Google it.

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

Coupon-mad said:

No, use the template defence. I can tell that neither draft so far is using it.

I'm so sorry to read about your Dad. Do you have email evidence of all of this contact, or was it all by phone?

I got the dreaded letter from DCB seeking £170, I went back and forth with them many times explaining my dad had just died and I was mentally and financially vulnerable, they just kept repeating the same standard reply £170 or nothing.

I then got the DCB solicitors, I explained again the case law around their £170 making it unfair and offering the £60, they didn't reply or acknowledge my emails. I told them again, I was mentally vulnerable and their letters were highly distressing me.

Now I have the county court claim, I don't have the mental energy to fight this after watching my dad die, genuinely, but I have begged these people and companies to have some compassion during such a vulnerable time and I've been flat out ignored. I won't roll over at this point and I will fight this. I'll go in front of a judge if I have to. 

Thank you so much, it was a very difficult passing for him and getting all these letters was awful. I will redraft using the template again, I really appreciate the feedback. I got it off another thread that had fallen for this same carpark so I'll go back and use the template on the thread. I do have lots of emails telling them what was going on and asking for them to treat me as a vulnerable person but I just got copy and paste replies saying to just pay the £170. 

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

Car1980 said:

Remember the code of practice requires additional signs to be installed for 4 months advising that the terms and conditions have changed. Google it.

Wow this is so super helpful, thank you !

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

Coupon-mad said:

No, use the template defence. I can tell that neither draft so far is using it.

I'm so sorry to read about your Dad. Do you have email evidence of all of this contact, or was it all by phone?

I got the dreaded letter from DCB seeking £170, I went back and forth with them many times explaining my dad had just died and I was mentally and financially vulnerable, they just kept repeating the same standard reply £170 or nothing.

I then got the DCB solicitors, I explained again the case law around their £170 making it unfair and offering the £60, they didn't reply or acknowledge my emails. I told them again, I was mentally vulnerable and their letters were highly distressing me.

Now I have the county court claim, I don't have the mental energy to fight this after watching my dad die, genuinely, but I have begged these people and companies to have some compassion during such a vulnerable time and I've been flat out ignored. I won't roll over at this point and I will fight this. I'll go in front of a judge if I have to. 

Hello, and thank you again, I used the template and I think I have formatted it enough to fit, I added in my arguments about lack of signage, new changes (now a paid carpark, i was one of the first to be caught out) and their conduct. Does this look OK to you? I have a few weeks so I'll not log my defence until closer to the deadline. Thank you. 

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

1. 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 in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out.

2. The Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The 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". The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims.

3. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims.

4. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) indicate the POC fails to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. In Chan (15/08/2023), HHJ Murch held: “the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach”. The same is true here.

5. In CPMS v Akande (10/05/2024), HHJ Evans held: “Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim”. The two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage. Link to authorities: Chan_Akande.

6. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegations, or costs are being pursued. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

7. The Defendant was under significant emotional distress due to the terminal illness and impending death of a close family member. This was made clear in repeated correspondence with the Claimant’s agents, who acted aggressively and uncompassionately, worsening mental health and financial hardship — contrary to SRA guidance on dealing with vulnerable individuals. DCB Legal ignored requests for reasonable treatment.

8. The signage was inadequate, newly introduced, and not sufficiently lit — especially at night. The Claimant is put to strict proof that signage met the BPA Code of Practice. Google imagery (July 2024) shows no clear sign. The car park operator breached BPA guidance by failing to install sufficient signage following a change in terms. 

9. The Claimant’s own ANPR image shows the car park was dark, with no clear or lit signage. This, combined with recent changes, meant the Defendant had no awareness of any new changes in affect.

10. Under duress, the Defendant offered £60 (an already unaffordable amount) during this vulnerable time to resolve the matter. This was ignored. The Defendant’s original appeal was rejected despite raising the lighting and signage issues. No explanation was given as to why £170 was justified. This inflated amount is excessive, and the offer is now withdrawn as it was made under pressure.

11. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached. For a valid contract, there must be offer, acceptance, and consideration — none of which apply here. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s.71) imposes a fairness test and high standards for prominence of terms and notices. Under s.62 and Schedule 2 (e.g. paras 6, 10, 14, 18), the Claimant’s unclear terms would be deemed unfair.

12. DVLA keeper data is only released on the basis of a valid landowner contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof of standing to sue and the full landowner agreement including site boundaries, contract terms, and any amendments.

13. To impose a PC, there must be: (i) a legitimate interest beyond loss recovery, and (ii) prominent notice of obligations and charges. These conditions are unmet. This charge is a penalty disguised as a contract term — unlike ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which is distinguished on the facts.

14. Beavis confirmed an £85 PC was enough to cover costs and generate a profit. In ParkingEye v Somerfield [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB), HHJ Hegarty held that inflated admin costs were disproportionate and penal — a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal.

15. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act, along with the Government’s 2025 consultation, aims to ban excessive DRA fees. A 2022 Minister stated these fees “extort money from motorists”. Government reports show DRA profits far exceed those of parking operators — suggesting systemic market abuse.

16. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), the claim exceeds the maximum recoverable sum. As per Explanatory Note 221: “The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper for more than the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued”. DRA fees are not “unpaid charges” and are unenforceable.

17. This claim is a waste of court time and part of a broader misuse of the small claims process. Parking claims make up a third of all small claims. The most common outcome is late discontinuance, and courts may award costs under CPR 38.6(1) where the claimant acts unreasonably. This is supported by CPR 27.14(2)(g) and commentary in the White Book.

18. The Defendant respectfully invites the court to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4, or to dismiss it at allocation.