Stansted Airport McDonalds/Starbucks (Southgate Park) PCN - LBC from DCB Legal

lovelyjubblysound

Hi all, I’m writing to seek your advice on responding to a DCB Legal 'Letter Before Claim' (LBC) regarding an alleged infraction that occurred on March 16, 2024, at Stansted Airport Starbucks (Southgate Park). I received this notice on the 16th of July, 2025, and waited for 5 days (my ‘Service’ date) to elapse so I can submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AOS) as per the guides on this forum. I intend on using the magic words early next week to add more time to prepare this Defence with your support. I will quote the ‘Particulars of Claim’ (POC) section verbatim, as I would like to respond to the poor wording there adequately with my Defence. 

I now want to construct a Defence on the Money Claim Online platform (MCOL) with your support + feedback. But first, here is some information (being provided to the best of my knowledge) as this incident occurred last year. 

Context:

I went to McDonald’s to get food at Stansted Airport. The car park was full and I had nowhere to park in the McDonald’s section of the car park. I parked in the Starbucks car park (Starbucks was closed at this time) to eat my McDonald’s before heading off. I probably stayed 30 minutes or less parked up in this way. I received a fine soon after stating I had violated the parking conditions set out in the signage of the car park. I appealed this fine via MET’s appeals process which obviously went nowhere - I do not recall for certain, but I may have outed myself as the driver at this stage (poor, I know) but I naively believed that my defence to MET was strong enough, or even mattered at that, to warrant dismissal at that stage.

If you have any questions about the contextual information I have laid out, please let me know. I would also like feedback on the following Defence I am considering submitting via MCOL now that I am in a position where I am forced to produce a response.

Particulars of Claim:

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC) issued to vehicle [REGISTRATION] at (346) Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY.

2. The dates of contravention are 16/03/2024 and the D was issued with PC(s) by the Claimant

3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Overstay.

4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170.00 being the total of the PC(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgement or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

Defence:

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 and driver.

3. On the day of the alleged infraction, the Defendant had made all reasonable attempts to park in compliance with the guidance provided on site at the adjoining McDonalds, but could not do so due to the car park being full. The arrangement, signage and delineation at the site: (346) Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24, 1PY, are insufficient and misleading. Therefore, the Defendant cannot reasonably have agreed to the parking terms and conditions. There is no reasonable reason for the car parks to be separated other than the Claimant wanting to catch out motorists.  The Defendant has no way of knowing where he can or not tread in the car park. No surface markings, no map. Therefore, even if the Defendant knew the terms and conditions, he can not reasonably follow them.

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))'.

Some further context, if relevant, is that they (MET and DCB)  are pursuing the following costs

Amount claimed: £188.32

Court fee: £35.00

Legal representative's costs: £50 

Total amount: £273.32

Thank you for your replies in advance.

Gr1pr

Its not a Letter of Claim or a Letter before Claim, LBC ,   it's an actual Court Claim by dcb legal on behalf of MET Parking,  using MCOL via the CNBC in Northampton , for an alleged overstay 

This part does not make sense

he can or not tread in the car park.

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below 

lovelyjubblysound

Gr1pr said:

Its not a Letter of Claim or a Letter before Claim, LBC ,   it's an actual Court Claim by dcb legal on behalf of MET Parking,  using MCOL via the CNBC in Northampton , for an alleged overstay 

This part does not make sense

he can or not tread in the car park.

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below 

I thought HMCTS was how Letters of Claim were issued. But yes - this was, of course, initiated by DCB Legal on behalf of MET, using MCOL, so I received the below (I could not post images because of newbie settings, apologies). Attaching the correspondence letter with my details blurred out here.

The issue date for this correspondence was the 16th of July, 2025, as stated above. As I understand it, I have until Monday, the 18th of August, to construct a defence if I respond with an AOS sent in by the 4th of August.

I copied and pasted the exact template provided by @Coupon-mad under this thread, so unsure if wording needs to be change: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-with-added-admin-dra-costs-edited-in-2025/p1

Coupon-mad

I'd remove the first sentence in para 3. No admission of where you parked. Other than that, it's good to go.

They'll discontinue before any hearing.

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' AND COSTS WHICH DUPLICATE THE CAPPED LEGAL FEES ALLOWANCE OF £50 FOR SMALL CLAIMS.

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

Gr1pr

Letters of Claim   ( LoC or LBC  ) are sent by claimants or legal companies, not HMCTS, you definitely have a court claim form, it says so 

In post 1 you said that it was received on 16th July, but it was actually Issued on 16th July,  so you actually received it a few days later, hence why I wanted clarification,  just to be sure   ( because nobody is interested in when it was received   )

The AOS is completed on MCOL,  not sent in,  if you are doing it

As coupon mad stated,  remove the first admission sentence in paragraph 3 , and submit the rest in MCOL 

lovelyjubblysound

Thank you both, I'll respond in line with your suggestions and update on the outcome here!

I'll also review the consultation and provide my response - I agree, this entire charade has been utterly ridiculous. 

Gr1pr

I predict that you will be back here on this thread long before any outcome,  because the game has just kicked off