Claim Form issued by DCB Legal ltd after being fined by Total Parking Solutions. I'm not driver.

Coupon-mad

No reason why you can't use shahib's paragraph 3 but use the new short template.

speeddemonn

Coupon-mad said:

No reason why you can't use shahib's paragraph 3 but use the new short template.

Understood. Thanks for that. 👍

speeddemonn

So, I have added the new short template to my draft, along with shahib's paragraph 3 (edited to suit). 

This leaves 25 remaining lines on MCOL. :-). 

When is it best to submit this, as soon as possible or close to the deadline?

Please see my draft below. Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks.

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.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The defendant was NOT the driver when the parking ticket was issued on 10/01/25. Furthermore, ownership was in a transfer period at this time and the new keeper’s details were sent to and acknowledged by Total Parking Solutions; evidence can be submitted, if required. 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.

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))'.

Gr1pr

Add the following words to the end of paragraph 2  ( regardless of what p3 says  )

But NOT the driver

There is no advantage in waiting to submit it,  assuming that it's the final draft,  it doesn't give you any advantage,  or issues, it's a deadline,  not something to aim at

Coupon-mad

And 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' THAT AN OPERATOR COULD OFFER WITHOUT ADDED FEES.

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.

speeddemonn

How long does it usually take to recieve the directions questionnaire after submitting my defence? 

I've got the following claims history on MCOL:

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 31/07/2025 at 14:05:08

Your defence was submitted on 08/08/2025 at 15:01:15

Your defence was received on 11/08/2025 at 01:05:50

Thanks.

Gr1pr

Probably within 6 to 8 weeks,  so next month or later

Coupon-mad

speeddemonn said:

How long does it usually take to recieve the directions questionnaire after submitting my defence? 

I've got the following claims history on MCOL:

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 31/07/2025 at 14:05:08

Your defence was submitted on 08/08/2025 at 15:01:15

Your defence was received on 11/08/2025 at 01:05:50

Thanks.

Weeks or longer.

First though, and I know I mentioned it already but don't be daunted by Public Consultation if you haven't done it yet.

We can help! Let's do it. See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline! Just 2 weeks left but please don't rush it. You can do some then save it and come back to it as you have time.

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that.

So to try to help, I've written some guidance on that thread.

Any questions on the Consultation please ask - on the dedicated thread - but I've covered up to question 20 already in that first post, openly telling everyone what I'm going to put and/or what sort of evidence you might wish to use for your response, if you agree with what we'll be saying from our experience.

Whilst your answers must of course be your own, there are vital points to safeguard motorists interests to make, that many people may not think of without our guidance because we see cases every day and we know the legal background. However, people like you have lived & breathed the intimidation, greed and unfairness first hand so your voice is needed!

speeddemonn

Coupon-mad said:

speeddemonn said:

How long does it usually take to recieve the directions questionnaire after submitting my defence? 

I've got the following claims history on MCOL:

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 31/07/2025 at 14:05:08

Your defence was submitted on 08/08/2025 at 15:01:15

Your defence was received on 11/08/2025 at 01:05:50

Thanks.

Weeks or longer.

First though, and I know I mentioned it already but don't be daunted by Public Consultation if you haven't done it yet.

We can help! Let's do it. See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline! Just 2 weeks left but please don't rush it. You can do some then save it and come back to it as you have time.

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that.

I'm taking a closer look this week and we'll walk you through it. I should have all the first post 'how to respond to each question' advice ready by the end of this week.

I've made a start, covered up to question 9 already. Be patient with me as this is detailed and we don't think average motorists will know about raising the extra points otherwise.

There are vital points to safeguard motorists interests to make, that many people won't think of without our guidance. There won't be a template - the survey is for you to reply in your words - but we'll help everyone with what to focus on.

That's all done, up to question 13 anyway.

Coupon-mad

Good. I'm adding more info, daily this week.