Court Stage - DCB Legal (EuroCarParks)

leighjones123

Hey! Thanks for taking the time to read. I've been through loads of threads on here doing my research, and I'm hoping that with your help, I can beat the robbing g**ts DCB Legal regarding a parking fine. 

Firm: DCB Legal
Client: Euro Car Parks
Breach: Staying too long in a car park

I had, I now understand, ignored correspondence from these up to this point - perhaps, ashamdedly, just hoping that it would go away. Now that's not happened - and I've recieved claim form for CCJ. 

I need to protect my credit file - but I understand that if I go through the court procedure, even if it gets to a hearing - and I lose - I've still got 28 days to pay at that point to ensure it doesn't go on my credit file? 

I've read a thread on here but can't find it - with the key steps in to follow - would anyone be able to link me? I thought it was in the newbies thread, which I've read, but can't find it. 

I believe that at this stage - my first job now is to do an AOS, to buy me 14 days extra time to deal with a defence etc. Is this correct? 

Any guidance throughout this journey would be really appreciated - I've never done anything like it before. 

I've attached the particulars of claim here in case useful. 

So am I right in saying my first step is the AOS and then next it's defence?

thanks!

Castle

What is the issue date for the claim?

leighjones123

Castle said:

What is the issue date for the claim?

Issue Date: 22 Jul 2025 

Coupon-mad

Everyone (hundreds of posters in the first half of 2025 alone) with a single PCN claim from DCB Legal, have easily beaten it. DCB Legal will discontinue by the New Year.

No hearing, no costs, nowt scary. Yes you are right with everything you say.

We won't link the Newbies Thread but my signature tells new posters how to navigate the forum. The thread is a click back on page one.

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'!

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.

leighjones123

Thanks @Coupon-mad - more than happy to contribute to wider action regarding these ridiculous pushy 'court-process-abusing' idiots. I will write to my MP next week. Will look through the thread you've linked. 

Thanks, I'll go back through the newbies thread. 

With an issue date of 22 Jul 2025 am I right to put my AOS in now i.e. tonight or in the morning, and then buy some time to thrash out a defence? 

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Yep do the AOS this week. 

Castle

leighjones123 said:

Thanks @Coupon-mad - more than happy to contribute to wider action regarding these ridiculous pushy 'court-process-abusing' idiots. I will write to my MP next week. Will look through the thread you've linked. 

Thanks, I'll go back through the newbies thread. 

With an issue date of 22 Jul 2025 am I right to put my AOS in now i.e. tonight or in the morning, and then buy some time to thrash out a defence? 

Thanks!

File it in the morning-which will then give you a deadline of 24th August for your Defence; (because of weekends and a bank holiday, it will actually be Tuesday 26th).

leighjones123

Great, thanks @Coupon-mad & @Castle - I've submitted an AOS via MCOL today  
We're away on holiday at the moment, but I'll get to work on a defence when we are back - and make sure it's submitted well in good time for the deadline that @Castle kindly stated above.

Are you able to check over my defence when I've done it, before submitting?

Many thanks

Gr1pr

Your defence has 90% already written for you,  in the defence template thread near the top of the forum 

You only need to adapt paragraphs 2 & 3

You can post those 2 below for critique before you submit them on MCOL,  easy peasy

leighjones123

Gr1pr said:

Your defence has 90% already written for you,  in the defence template thread near the top of the forum 

You only need to adapt paragraphs 2 & 3

You can post those 2 below for critique before you submit them on MCOL,  easy peasy

Thanks @Gr1pr - much appreciated. I'll have a look at that today!  

leighjones123

Hi @Gr1pr / @Castle / @Coupon-mad / all,

I've drafted my defence. Are you able to check it for me? 

The POC are in my initial post. Any help appreciated!  

PARAGRAH 3 only

3. The Defendant does not recall receiving any correspondence from Euro Car Parks prior to recent demands from DCB Legal, which appeared to be a scam due to their threatening tone and unfamiliar reference. The location was described as “**********”, which does not clearly identify the site known locally as **********, causing further confusion. Given the time elapsed (2 years and 7 months), the Defendant cannot reasonably recall who was driving the vehicle on the material date.

FULL 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.

 

3. The Defendant does not recall receiving any correspondence from Euro Car Parks prior to recent demands from DCB Legal, which appeared to be a scam due to their threatening tone and unfamiliar reference. The location was described as “**********”, which does not clearly identify the site known locally as **********, causing further confusion. Given the time elapsed (2 years and 7 months), the Defendant cannot reasonably recall who was driving the vehicle on the material date.

 

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))'.