DCB Legal ltd LoC (Smart Parking ) Angouleme way

Bullet39

Hi All,

I disputed a PCN back in 2022 for keeper wasn't notified with 14 days which Smart parking replied say they did and they matter had been passed to Debt Recovery plus.  I had never and still to this day don't any evidence of the offence.  I know for a fact it wasn't me and evidence should show the sex of the driver is not male but I haven't seen the evidence.  I had a string of letter from Debt recovery plus in 2022 which I ignored and then nothing until to day (3 year later) I get a mail from DCB Legal with LoC.

is this an ok response and do anyone have the email to send the response too?

Subject: Response to Letter of Claim – [Your Name, Reference Number]

To DCB Legal Ltd,

I write in response to your Letter of Claim dated [insert date], regarding an alleged parking charge from Date at Angouleme Way Retail Park, Bury.

As the Registered Keeper, I deny any liability. I did not receive any Notice to Keeper within the statutory time period under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), and as such, your client has failed to establish Keeper liability.

Further, the initial appeal response referenced only contact with a debt recovery agency, not any direct PCN or compliant Notice to Keeper. This is not compliant with POFA, which requires that a Notice to Keeper be served within 14 days of the alleged contravention if no Notice to Driver was issued.

I request that your client ceases further action and cancels this charge. Should your client proceed to litigation, I will request the court to strike out the claim as an abuse of process and will seek my full costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

Please confirm that the case is closed. If not, I require the following documents under the Pre-Action Protocol:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper

2. Evidence of when it was posted

3. Any photographs taken

4. A full breakdown of the amount claimed

5. Evidence of a landowner contract or authority to enforce at the location

6. A copy of the signage on which you rely

Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Address]

[Date] 

Brie

Not entirely sure that the evidence would reveal the sex of the driver unless there's some very good close up photos included.  Normally there isn't.  And in any case it's irrelevant as whomever was driving didn't enter into a contract for parking.

Gr1pr

Either email your LoC response or email the template response to DCB Legal found in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum by coupon mad,  second post 

Use the info@ email address 

Then wait for their template response followed by a court claim next month 

Coupon-mad

Why haven't you said at the start of that response that you were not the driver?

Please DON'T show us DCB Legal's drivel template reply when it comes. Search the forum for the VAT acronym in it and you'll see why we never want to see it again (thanks)!

Secondly, pretty please if you want to be part of the push to change things in future:

It's very important that people like you - struggling with aggressive court claims for no justified reason - tell the Government that:

a) you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be the SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 *almost* promised. That will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court.

b).  THAT THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND ENGINEERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN'.

c). Tell them about your experiences.

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

Do it this month or in August at the latest pleeease! We will discuss it on that thread.

Bullet39

OK So I've received my Court Claim Form Standard DCB Legal that is on every other thread.  So I've done the Acknowledgement of service on DCOL.  I've got my defence ready I've got standard Paragraph 3 but have modified 2 and 4 to suit my case what do people think?

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague, and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The Defendant confirms they were the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver at the material time. No Notice to Keeper was ever received within the timescales required under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and the first contact came from a debt collection agency months later. The Defendant had no opportunity to appeal or identify the driver. The alleged event dates back to June 2022, and this three-year delay is prejudicial and unreasonable. The Defendant questions whether any Notice to Keeper was ever POFA-compliant.

3. 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 a clear offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. The signage at Angouleme Way Retail Park, Bury was unclear, confusing, and poorly located, with Bury Council pay machines placed adjacent to Smart Parking’s controlled area. Numerous motorists have made the same error at this site, mistaking the council machine for the correct payment point. The Claimant’s signage failed the requirements of clarity and prominence set by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Defendant therefore denies that any fair or transparent contract could have been formed.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).

Gr1pr

I bet that the allegation regarding the alleged breach is pleaded in their POC,  in which case remove the Chan and Akande paragraph above 

Then 4 becomes 3

And then add the extra paragraph regarding the untruth, as seen in other recent cases on here 

Bullet39

Thanks Gr1pr for reviewing is this better

3. The Particulars of Claim contain a clear untruth. The Claimant or their solicitor has stated that the Defendant is liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”), yet no Notice to Keeper was ever served within the statutory 14-day period, and the Defendant was not the driver. The Claimant is therefore fully aware that keeper liability cannot apply, yet they have knowingly pleaded otherwise. This is a misleading statement to the Court, contrary to the overriding objective and to the duty to deal with cases honestly and proportionately under CPR 1.3.

 

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached, but to form a contract, there must be a clear offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. The signage at Angouleme Way Retail Park, Bury was unclear, confusing, and poorly located, with Bury Council pay machines placed adjacent to Smart Parking’s controlled area. Numerous motorists have made the same error at this site, mistaking the council machine for the correct payment point. The Claimant’s signage failed the requirements of clarity and prominence set by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Defendant therefore denies that any fair or transparent contract could have been formed.

Gr1pr

Swap them round 

Le_Kirk

Can we see the date of issue from the claim form please along with the POC as we don't know if Chan & Akande can be used as suggested by @Gr1pr.

Bullet39

Hi Le_Kirk 

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge (PC) issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at Angouleme Way Retail Park, Bury.

2. The date of contravention is 24/06/2022 and the D was issued with a PC 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: Insufficient Paid Time.

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 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 judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees.

Gr1pr

The alleged breach is pleaded in 3.  So no Chan and Akande