DCB Legal, Para 3 defence

Coupon-mad

tpldrizzy said:

I am struggling to find the right template. Forgive me for my ignorance but with so many abbreviations I struggle to navigate these forums even through reading how too! Even if I believe I have no defence, I am still mean to submit one? What would you suggest the content of my defence be? 

Use the Template Defence. Cunningly 'hidden' in announcement thread entitled Template Defence.

No link needed. See my signature for how to easily navigate the forum.

tpldrizzy

I know you mentioned ‘dead easy to defend’ - what do you suggest I put in my defence? I have no defence yet I am being told to obviously not pay it? I don’t want to do all of this and end up with a bigger bill to pay at the end of it and be part of the ‘small percent’ 

Gr1pr

The defence template has nearly all the paragraphs written for you already ( it's at the very top of the forum   )

You add an ending to paragraph 2 and add a few lines for paragraph 3 to rebut the POC on the claim form 

Job done

There wont be a bigger bill,  probably a smaller bill if you lost,  no bill if you win, so either way you would be better off than doing nothing 

tpldrizzy

Having read through the template it suggests to include case specifics, as I have mentioned I don't believe I have much of a defence! Apart from having checked 2 hours of parking is £1.50 and I am being charged (before fees) 175 pounds being the total of the PCs and damages (plus interest at 8%) - who on earth makes these Parking charges up! Any hints as to what you think I can include?

Gr1pr

The only charges that you can and are objecting to in the template will be the added on debt collectors fee plus the interest

The other figures are the pcn charge plus allowed legal and court fees, so nothing to see there,  meaning that a typical judgment is around £212 if you lost in court 

But your paragraph 3 is nothing to do with those charges

You are rebutting the claim form POC allegation for paragraph 3

Coupon-mad

The template defence already says what you might include in para 3. The facts as you know them.

Le_Kirk

You are defending against the POC - failed to validate stay or make a payment. They cannot even be bothered to tell you why you are being pursued!  Was it a Pay & Display with a faulty payment terminal or did the PDT not register your VRM correctly or did the tablet upon which you validate parking, fail?

tpldrizzy

Hello, it was an oversight as I was slightly late to a booking I had off memory - it was a date as well (added pressure). I have created a defence which fits within the MCOL limits, I am just hoping someone can eye it over. I stole someones example for para 4 - 

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 and driver has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, 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'."

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))'.

Coupon-mad

Your case isn't one for Chan & Akande.

Also please edit your thread title as you aren't at LBC stage now.

tpldrizzy

3. The Defendant notes that any signage at the location was unclear or not prominent enough to bring terms to the attention of a driver. No detailed evidence of a breach has been provided by the Claimant, and the Defendant questions the legitimacy of the added costs, which appear to be an attempt at double recovery and are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. - with my lack of defence this is the only thing I can think of adding... As I have no defence I am very unsure as to what I need to make a point of highlighting