Letter from DCB LEGAL - parking fine

Gr1pr

Definitely not,  do not mention legal words like FINE or OFFENCE etc, a Manchester Judge recently rejected a defence that used those words due to this being a civil dispute,  not a criminal matter, so a new defence was ordered

No longer owning the vehicle is irrelevant if it was yours on the incident date 

Study these recent cases

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6626291/help-received-dcb-legal-claim-missed-defense-deadline/p1

paramedic124

Thank you - sorry for continually posting I don’t really understand it no matter how much I read into it. 

Is this sufficient? 

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 Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant breached terms of parking, but the Defendant has no recollection of the circumstances surrounding the purported Parking Charge Notice (PCN), which is alleged to have been issued on 21st April 2021 and 9th May 2021. The Defendant changed address since that time and does not recall receiving any notices or reminders. Given the significant passage of time, the Defendant cannot confirm whether they were the driver and therefore denies liability in any capacity. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the alleged breach, the evidence relied upon, the identity of the driver, and compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in attempting to transfer liability to the keeper. 

3.1 - Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on the specified dates as alleged.  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 £160 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

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))'.

1505grandad

I think the quantum in your case is £170?

Coupon-mad

paramedic124 said:

1505grandad said:

I think the quantum in your case is £170?

Yep, £170 x 2, so don't just copy '£160'.

The defence is good otherwise... almost...

BUT YOU HAVE MISSED THE EXTRA POINT ON EVERY SMART DEFENCE THREAD, ABOUT THE SIGNATORY MISLEADING THE COURT.

There are lots of examples of DCB Legal misleading the court and keepers about POFA liability in non-POFA cases. All Smart Parking claims this year include this misleading action in the claim particulars e.g.

TimBisley 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81594423/#Comment_81594423

basilpeach
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625981/defence-against-dcb-legal-for-smart-parking/p1

helpiamuseless66
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625722/smart-parking-dcbl/p1

kevmac25
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81622149/#Comment_81622149

Some or all of the above have the extra paragraph about the signatory misleading the court about POFA. You need to add that in your case too, making your defence 11 paragraphs or more.

If it doesn't fit into MCOL just remove the LAST paragraph of the template defence.

Gr1pr

As above,  it's £170 for each pcn, not £160

So very close, but a bit more work 

Plus you missed out the untruth paragraph as mentioned above,  at paragraph 4 or 5 , shunting the rest down to say 6 onwards,  making 11 paragraphs in total,  or possibly 12 when you renumber and get each paragraph with its own number 

Then check if it all fits into MCOL 

paramedic124

Is that this paragraph that you’re referring to sorry? 

‘ As outlined in Paragraph 4 of the Claim, the Claimant seeks to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle, but the Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable, so the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is misleading the court by citing that law. As a result, the Defendant denies any liability as the keeper of the vehicle. ‘

Gr1pr

That's correct,  add it around paragraph 4 and renumber accordingly,  you will end up with a draft defence of 11 or 12 numbered paragraphs in total,  so 1 or 2 more than the template 

paramedic124

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. The Defendant does not recall being served with a compliant Notice to Keeper for these charges, which complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (‘POFA’) 2012 wording prescribed in Schedule. Outside the POFA, parking firms cannot invoke ‘keeper liability’. This legal point has already been tested on appeal (twice) in private parking cases.

3.  Referring to the POC, paragraph 1 is denied, the Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied, the Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 04/08/2020 as alleged. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant does not even know from the PCN or the POC what that time limit was. The Defendant has little recollection of the events, considering this occurred five years ago, other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not the driver, so questions arise whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant. The Claimant is required to provide strict proof of all their allegations. The Defendant denies the claim, asserting that any stay within the car park was either within the permitted time or would have been subject to a reasonable extension, such as grace periods mandated by the relevant Code of Practice. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land), and no damages were incurred whatsoever. Moreover, given the passage of over five years and the lack of specific details in the inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a complete defence, particularly as the signage at the location may have been unclear, ineffective or inadequate at the time.

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. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 3, research has proved that this Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable. This is important because the Defendant was not driving and, in fact, the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly/negligently misleading the court by citing that law. Despite many boilerplate claims from DCB Legal causing inflated default CCJs this year - as they have reportedly filed a 'job lot' of template bulk claims for this Claimant, all repeating the untruth about the POFA 2012 - Smart Parking has no cause of action against any registered keeper.

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 wastes court resources and reflects systemic abuse: parking cases now form a third of small claims. False fees drive bulk litigation that clogs HMCTS, with most defended cases ending in late discontinuance. Although costs don’t usually apply on the small claims track (r.38.6(3)), the White Book notes they may be awarded for unreasonable conduct (r.27.14(2)(dg))

^^ I’ve just seen this one from a September thread, is that ok to submit now? 

Gr1pr

You would have to alter a few details to suit your own case, dates etc

paramedic124

The form is asking if we want to make a counter claim, do we say yes or no?