DCB Legal Claim

Le_Kirk

As @Gr1pr writes, you cannot use Chan & Akande as the reason for the claim form is given in the POC.  You need to answer the actual breach, which is failure to purchase and/or display a ticket/permit.  Maybe the PDT was broken OR you did display a ticket/permit OR ............

UKteak51

Hi Coupon-mad

Please see my second attempt at 2 and 3. 

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 no recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper but not the driver. The registered keeper was in hospital undergoing tests and treatment for cancer. 

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 16/12/2023" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be: a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Le_Kirk

Not sure you need the last sentence of your paragraph #2, maybe save it for the witness statement as it will go to show that you could not have been the driver.  Your paragraph #3 should answer the actual breach.
Edited to correct para 3 to para 2

Coupon-mad

Le_Kirk said:

Not sure you need the last sentence of your paragraph #3, maybe save it for the witness statement as it will go to show that you could not have been the driver. 

You mean the last sentence of para 2, I think?

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Le_Kirk said:

Not sure you need the last sentence of your paragraph #3, maybe save it for the witness statement as it will go to show that you could not have been the driver. 

You mean the last sentence of para 2, I think?

Of course I do and I checked it twice!  Now edited.

UKteak51

HI Guys

thanks for the comments. I've amended 2 and 3. is all of 3 needed form "the Quantum is hugely inflated .....

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 no recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper but not the driver. 

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied; the keeper has no knowledge that a PC was issued on 16/12/2023 (the date of the alleged visit).  Paragraph 3 whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, the keeper was not the driver and 4 The Keeper had no knowledge of where the vehicle was being used on that day. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be: a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

Coupon-mad

No, I think the rest of the Template Defence already covers the inflated charges.

UKteak51

Thanks so much, should I file it in MCOL toady?

Gr1pr

Should be OK to submit it if you removed the lower half of paragraph 3 about the quantum 

Ensure that it fits into the 122 lines,  with no errors,  save, submit 

Coupon-mad

UKteak51 said:

Thanks so much, should I file it in MCOL today?

Yes, this week. You must hit SUBMIT!

Everyone (hundreds of posters in the first half of 2025 alone) with a single PCN claim from DCB Legal, have easily beaten these.

DCB Legal will discontinue by the New Year.

No hearing, no costs, nowt scary.

But it is a national disgrace and a drain on Society, in terms of money and anxiety.

If you want to be part of the push to change things in future, it's very important that people like you 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. As long as it is independent and impartial (and only ONE appeals service, not two involved in a race to the bottom) 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 OFFERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN'!

c). Tell them about your experience and the complete and utter waste of court resources caused on a grand scale by DCB Legal,

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 pleeease! We will discuss it on that thread next week if you want ideas.