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

Coupon-mad

No you need to use the Template Defence.

I can tell from paragraph 1 that you are mixing the old one in. Don't do that. Start again. This is too long.

Go get the Template Defence as it currently stands and then put your facts as para 3. Maybe para 4 as well. Renumber the template then - once you have run it by us - test if it fits on MCOL.

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

Coupon-mad said:

No you need to use the Template Defence.

I can tell from paragraph 1 that you are mixing the old one in. Don't do that. Start again. This is too long.

Go get the Template Defence as it currently stands and then put your facts as para 3. Maybe para 4 as well. Renumber the template then - once you have run it by us - test if it fits on MCOL.

Thank you I will do, my apologies will do that now.

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

Coupon-mad said:

No you need to use the Template Defence.

I can tell from paragraph 1 that you are mixing the old one in. Don't do that. Start again. This is too long.

Go get the Template Defence as it currently stands and then put your facts as para 3. Maybe para 4 as well. Renumber the template then - once you have run it by us - test if it fits on MCOL.

Hi, I hope I've used the correct template and thank you again, sorry for using the wrong template. I believe this is 110 lines, so under the 122 lines.

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.

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

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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'.

9. 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'.

10. 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.

11. 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))'.

TYSM 

Coupon-mad

That's better.

I'd remove 'and financial hardship' which they haven't caused and isn't relevant to mention because it's not that you can't pay, it's that you are defending - given the circumstances - an unfair charge that you WON'T pay.

If you find this doesn't fit in MCOL's defence box, just remove the final paragraph.

Then, please come back here in August to do the Public Consultation about the long overdue Government regulation of private parking. The way DCB treated you proves that there should be no DRA 'fee' because there is no semblance of consumer ethics. L

The pre-action phase should NEVER be funded by motorists because DRAs only make money when they persuade victims to pay. Thus there is nothing in it for DRAs to act in the best interests of consumers. This set up cannot be right. DRA fees must be banned and the industry must cover the cost of PAP letters and contact.

I know it's painful but this evidence is something the MHCLG will want to see, trust me. This is silver bullet evidence:

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

Coupon-mad said:

That's better.

I'd remove 'and financial hardship' which they haven't caused and isn't relevant to mention because it's not that you can't pay, it's that you are defending - given the circumstances - an unfair charge that you WON'T pay.

If you find this doesn't fit in MCOL's defence box, just remove the final paragraph.

Then, please come back here in August to do the Public Consultation about the long overdue Government regulation of private parking. The way DCB treated you proves that there should be no DRA 'fee' because there is no semblance of consumer ethics. L

The pre-action phase should NEVER be funded by motorists because DRAs only make money when they persuade victims to pay. Thus there is nothing in it for DRAs to act in the best interests of consumers. This set up cannot be right. DRA fees must be banned and the industry must cover the cost of PAP letters and contact.

I know it's painful but this evidence is something the MHCLG will want to see, trust me. This is silver bullet evidence:

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.

Thank you so much youve been so enormously helpful. I will do this in August, I repeated myself over and over and got the same generic reply of "we are instructed for the full amount". Thank you so much again I will update how I get on in the next steps of the process and if I can secure a discontinuance. 

Gr1pr

Please post the name of the private parking company,  the one DCB Legal are acting for

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

Gr1pr said:

Please post the name of the private parking company,  the one DCB Legal are acting for

Absolutely , the carpark is leased by Edge Liverpool to NPC, I explained to NPC about the issues around no clear signage and my dad was dying, they passed it to DCBL, then DCB legal issued the court claim. All parties were informed quickly I was struggling mentally and financially (from the cost of my personal circumstances, being off work etc) all ignored my requests. I'm happy to publish the emails with my personal details redacted virtually begging for consideration, I even offered the £60 just to make it go away, totally ignored. Obviously I have withdrawn that offer and will fight this to the end as they have behaved so unethically.

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

And also, now I've the time to actually read around this and with all your advice on here, I know I genuinely don't owe them a penny ! Pitch black carpark recently changed to paid with no clear lit signage and they want £263? No chance, not a penny!

Coupon-mad

Good stuff!

Can you show those emails (all in order, maybe screenshotted into one document then data redacted, saved as a PDF and linked for us in Dropbox?).

All headers/data, full email addresses & names removed please. All dates showing.

Not copied & pasted here. Screenshots are best to prove the emails are really from DCB.

I'd like to use them as evidence myself and because I'm on the MHCLG Parking Code Steering Group, the Government have to listen to me. I currently have some clout.

  

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

Coupon-mad said:

Good stuff!

Can you show those emails (all in order, maybe screenshotted into one document then data redacted, saved as a PDF and linked for us in Dropbox?).

All headers/data, full email addresses & names removed please. All dates showing.

Not copied & pasted here. Screenshots are best to prove the emails are really from DCB.

I'd like to use them as evidence myself and because I'm on the MHCLG Parking Code Steering Group, the Government have to listen to me. I currently have some clout.

  

Absolutely, so for context I appealed to NPC (I got their letters two weeks before Christmas) then the IAS, and then these are the emails from March onwards with DCB. My dad passed the end of February, so this went on two weeks after his passing and is still going on. All over twenty minutes in that carpark. I uploaded oldest to new, with dcb legal I took a screen shot when I messaged them through their Web contact, I received no reply and no acknowledgement, despite reiterating my circumstances. They just lodged proceedings. 

I believe I have removed all data but left the dates OK. Please let me know if I can do anything else, I hope it highlights just how ruthless these people are. I've messaged you a link to the drop box I created with the emails.

And thank you again for the help you've given.