DCBL and N1 Claim Form - Next Steps Advice....

CharmingRobbie

I am a newbie in this forum.  I have a similar issue to those in this thread. 

We have been in a protracted dispute with DBCL acting on behalf of CP Plus, with respect an alleged car park overstay last year.  CP Plus issued a PCN to us as keeper of the vehicle, stating 3 hour plus parking dual carriageway motor service station which we had no recollection of. 

Their evidence being a photo of our vehicle on a non-descript road with no distinguishing features other than a road and hedges.  They charged £60 (14 days) then £100 (if not paid).  We immediately responded in writing, seeking further clarity and evidence, by registered post.  Specifically asking more specifics of the offence, the plan where the restrictions were, any signage and any other images of vehicle.  Nothing was received since substantiating their position other than this photo and reference to signage (but not presented).

We have maintained this position – seeking clarity, across numerous letters from CP Plus, then DCBL.  We have always responded in writing by registered post seeking more information.  We have not seen any correspondence for a long while and then today we received a N1 Claim Form.  We have consulted our Family Solicitor and they suggested initially seeking information from others which is why we are here. 

We now note DCBL are claiming £265.80.

Our view is they have little evidence to support their position.  Their reliance seems solely on a photo of our car on a road, which could be any road. 

We would welcome your advice.

Gr1pr

As with all the other cases 

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below plus a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

Study the 2nd post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum,  then study the first 2 posts in the defence template thread in announcements too 

No offence was committed 

Coupon-mad

CP Plus cases by DCB Legal normally lend themselves to the Chan and Akande wording which is linked in the Template Defence itself (for Gladstones and other cases where no breach is pleaded).

This'll be easy. Show us the POC.

CharmingRobbie

Hi.  
We were on holiday - so opened today:
-
N1SDT Form:
Issued: 28 July 2025
POC:

+++++++
Assumed Draft based on Newbies Template with DCBL wording at start..  

--begins

DEFENCE

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

3. 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. 

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'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

Link to the two authorities: [add link]

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

6. (Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one) to do..

-

7. 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.

8. 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).

9. 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.

10. 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'.

11. 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'.

12. 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.

13. 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))'.

--ends

Gr1pr

Login to MCOL and complete the AOS online on MCOL first 

Your deadline will then be early September at the latest, but preferably by the end of August 

1505grandad

The first para is not from the latest Template Defence in the announcements  -  haven't read further

Coupon-mad

1505grandad said:

The first para is not from the latest Template Defence in the announcements  -  haven't read further

Yep this defence isn't the one linked in the 3rd para of the Template Defence for POC like this.

CharmingRobbie

AOS completed. 

thanks for advice on 1st para, for a dcbl claim I have reviewed the forum, and as far as I can see copied the right version.  where is if different?.  

Gr1pr

The defence template paragraph 1 starts as below,  yours doesn't have that paragraph 

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'. T