PCN for Camponile hotel - DCB Legal

Mut12345

Hello there,

I'm hoping for some help with the draft defence against DCB Legal. 

Was parked in the Campanile hotel Runcorn without a ticket for 1-2 hours. 

Points I want to make in paragraph 3:

*Occured late at night in Febraury around 10pm when dark and raining heavily, signage was not very readable - especially any written T&Cs

*Parking payment machine was locked inside reception front door at the time and not accessible - again signage unreadable therefore not aware of any other methods to pay available 

3.) The charges relate to a date over 6 months ago which is an unreasonable amount of time for specific facts and evidence to be completely recollected. I, the registered keeper, was visiting a friend staying at the Camponile hotel in Runcorn late at night around 10pm for a couple of hours. It was dark, windy and raining heavily. Signage was not completely legible due to insufficient lighting on the premises. The parking payment machine was located inside hotel reception which was locked and inaccessible at the time. No other payment method was available as far as I was aware.

Would welcome any honest feedback and help, I plan to put this as paragraph 3 within the template, if there's any thing else I should add or word different would really appreciate it! Unfortunately have been hit by 2 separate DCB Legal court letters in a row and hoping to be one of the many success stories on here. Thanks in advance

Gr1pr

TCP , DCB LEGAL claim,  parked without a valid parking session  !  So non payment and no permit to park )

IMPORTANT,   have you completed the AOS stage online yet, if yes, on what date  ? The deadline was yesterday 

The defence is written in the 3rd person,  no I or My etc

The name of the hotel is not spelt correctly,  so needs changing ( the POC has the correct name   )

Paragraph 2 should end keeper and driver,  no need to repeat it in 3,  remember that it has to fit in MCOL 

James_Poisson

A bit late now but why didn't you complain to the hotel, reviews on Trip Advisor seems like they are quite willing to cancel?

Nellymoser

See claim form image posted Important Note section your password is still showing.

Coupon-mad

You don't need the first sentence of your draft as the Template already makes that exact point higher up. In fact also remove the sentence about that from the template because litigating a February PCN now is very fast. Not unreasonable.

Everything should be in the third person. Change "I, the registered keeper, was visiting a friend" to:

The Defendant was visiting a friend

Also your final sentence says "I" as well.

Mut12345

James_Poisson said:

A bit late now but why didn't you complain to the hotel, reviews on Trip Advisor seems like they are quite willing to cancel?

I phoned them up at the time and they didn't want to know because I hadn't booked the room myself! 🙄

Gr1pr said:

TCP , DCB LEGAL claim,  parked without a valid parking session  !  So non payment and no permit to park )

IMPORTANT,   have you completed the AOS stage online yet, if yes, on what date  ? The deadline was yesterday 

The defence is written in the 3rd person,  no I or My etc

The name of the hotel is not spelt correctly,  so needs changing ( the POC has the correct name   )

Paragraph 2 should end keeper and driver,  no need to repeat it in 3,  remember that it has to fit in MCOL 

Letter received 23/07

AOS done on 29/07

Please see re-drafted defence below

3.) The defendant visited their friend staying in the Campanile Hotel Runcorn at night around 10pm. It was dark and raining very heavily. Signage was not completely legible due to insufficient lighting on the premises. The parking payment machine was located inside the hotel reception which was locked at this time and inaccessible. No other payment method was readily available.

Mut12345

FINAL DRAFT TOTALCARPARKS

Please can anyone take a final look before I submit this,

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. 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 visited a friend staying in the Campanile Hotel Runcorn around 9.50pm on 15/02/25, leaving approximately 2-3 hours later. It was dark and raining very heavily this night. Signage was sparse and not completely legible due to insufficient lighting on the premises. Just prior to exit the defendant noticed a parking payment machine but this was located inside the segregated hotel reception desk area, which was locked/inaccessible at the time with all corridor lights switched off. No alternative payment method was readily available, nor clearly offered.

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

they were the registered keeper and driver.

Add the above to 2.

Once the defence is safely submitted on MCOL, stick around because we need you! Please read this message and do the vital current Public Consultation:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81552148/#Comment_81552148

It's important that the Government hears from people with unfair charges who are facing horrific, scary court claims.

The link shows the two vital points to concentrate on, IMHO:

- banning 'fee' add-ons completely.

- making sure a new SINGLE appeals service replaces POPLA and the IAS which are seen as not fully independent and involved in a 'race to the bottom'.

Click through to the main thread about the Consultation, Do not be deterred by the fact that some questions are for the parking industry only.

We are currently discussing how to respond. Please join us in doing this Consultation. This is your one chance to make a difference re the proper regulation of private parking.