Claim from DCB LEGAL/PARKMAVEN for vehicle breakdown

Woods52

Claim Form issued Aug 5th  2025 (received today) from Northampton County Court/DCB LEGAL/Parkmaven

This is for a “parking charge” incurred when my car broke down on a main road next to this retail park. To be safe, I pulled into the car park to await recovery. Car was undriveable.

Car park had no parking machines or signage requesting payment. I have parked there regularly. 

Recovery to garage could only take place the following day (when garage was open) so car had to be left. I am a lone female and could not stay with car overnight!

Ticket arrived by post. I appealed to POPLA with photo evidence of car being recovered eg mitigating circumstances. Appeal lost. Now received a court claim from DCB Legal.

I will adapt the defence set out by Johny86 as instructed. Do I need to do anything else now?

Which Court have you received the claim from ?

COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE, NORTHAMPTON, NN1 2LH

Name of the Claimant :    Parkmaven 

Claimants Solicitors: DCB LEGAL

Date of issue – Aug 5 2025

Date for AOS - 

Date to submit Defence - 

What is the claim for – 

1. THE DEFENDANT (D) IS INDEBTED TO THE CLAIMANT (C) FOR A PARKING CHARGE (S) ISSUED TO VEHICLE XXXX AT OCEAN PLAZA Marine Drive Southport PR8 1RY

2. Dates of contravention are 20/1/2025 and the D was issued with 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: no valid parking reservation 

4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012 Schedule 4

And the Claimant claims 

1. £170 BEING THE TOTAL OF THE PC AND DAMAGES

2. INTEREST AT A RATE OF 8% PER ANNUM PURSUANT TO S.69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 FROM THE DATE HEREOF AT A DAILY RATE OF £0.02 UNTIL JUDGEMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT. 3 COSTS AND COURT FEES

What is the value of the claim?

Amount Claimed £176.62

court fees £35.00

legal rep fees £50.00

Total Amount £261.72

Have you moved since the issuance of the PCN? (No)

Did you receive a letter of Claim With A reply Pack wanting I&E etc about 1mth before the claimform? NO AND NO 

Gr1pr

Do the AOS online on MCOL next week,  on Monday ideally,  your deadline for the defence template submission will then be 4pm on 8th September 

Adapt the template defence by coupon mad,  to be submitted on MCOL in due course 

Coupon-mad

Don't use an old defence by johny86.

Car1980

Mitigating circumstances are not a valid legal argument. Change it to "frustration of contract"instead and you're sorted (Google it).

Claim will be discontinued anyway.

Woods52

@Car1980 great advice - thank you very much!!

Umkomaas

Looks like DCB Legal have taken the next PPC in line to submit their spreadsheet of unpaid PCNs. Some Parkmaven discontinuances have started trickling through.  Have a look at the first few posts of the following thread (recognise where you are in the process - familiar?), then shoot towards the end of the thread to pick up a small number (which will increase, yours included if you follow forum advice) of Parkmaven discontinuances. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

Woods52

First draft of planned defence below. Based on ‘frustration of contract’ as advised. Thanks all.

The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were an unexpected shock. 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 a breach of any prominent term, and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) 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 Particulars. 

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

3. The Driver was not a customer in the retail park on the date in question. The driver’s vehicle suffered a breakdown on the adjacent main road and for safety reasons was forced to pull into the car park to await recovery. The vehicle could not be driven or moved. This unforeseen event made it impossible to leave the car park and impossible to fulfil any terms of contract or obligations the claimant may present.

The Claimant says the Defendant is indebted to a Parking Charge, yet given that no contract terms could be fulfilled and no contract obligations could exist in these circumstances, due to said frustration of contract, there is no evidence that a charge exists.

The Claimant states the vehicle in question was parked in breach of the terms yet the claimant has not presented any evidence as to what terms exist in the event of frustration on contract. Therefore no terms can exist. As stated in point 5, this amounts to a failure to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”.

4. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued. 

5. The Particulars of Claim ('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”. 

6. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued given the frustration of contract.

7. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum. 

8. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3 

9. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'" 

10. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either. 

11. In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out. 

Coupon-mad

That's really old. Aren't you using the Template Defence?

Woods52

Sorry. Didnt realise  it was old.... edited and attached to most recent template defence found on the forum. 

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 Driver was not a customer in the retail park on the date in question. The driver’s vehicle suffered a full mechanical breakdown on the adjacent main road and was forced into the car park to await recovery. The vehicle could not be driven or moved. This unforeseen event made it impossible to leave the car park and impossible to fulfil any terms of contract or obligations the claimant may present. It is clear frustration of contract. The Claimant says the Defendant is indebted to a Parking Charge, yet given that no contract terms could be fulfilled and no contract obligations could exist in these circumstances, there is no evidence that a charge exists.

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))'.

Coupon-mad

Yep that's good but I would remove this which doesn't need to be said:

"The Driver was not a customer in the retail park on the date in question."