TWO court claims received from DCB Legal - unsure how to fight these

ciantraingle

Hello everyone,


I am posting on behalf of my mom who received two court claims from DCB legal for two different parking contraventions. One from Parking eye for not paying for parking at a hospital when going for an interview and one from UKPCL for parking in an area that required a permit. She claims that she did not realise she had to pay for parking at the hospital when going in for an interview and for the second, she did not recall seeing signage for permit only parking. 

I always assumed that permit contraventions would be a 'Penalty' Charge Notice issued by the council, not a Parking Charge Notice, but both claims state they are Parking Charge Notices. Therefore, I am unsure if the permit contravention is worth taking to court or best settling with DCB Legal. 

My mom doesn't have much time or knowledge to be able to pursuit both of these and would prefer to settle out of court. Should I advise her to follow the steps in the NEWBIES thread and yield for peace of mind or to go ahead and fight both of these. If she does, on what grounds can she dispute/defend?

Castle

Passwords on both claim forms are still showing.

ciantraingle

Castle said:

Passwords on both claim forms are still showing.

Have updated with the passwords crossed out, thanks for spotting!!

Gr1pr

She should login to MCOL and complete the AOS online for each one,  separately,  to gain extra time,  so fight

Neither should be paid 

Coupon-mad

Go to the Template Defence thread!

One of those needs one version and the other one the other version.  You'll see when you read it.

ciantraingle

Thank you! I have drafted two separate paragraph 3s if you someone doesn't mind having a look?

For the contravention regarding parking without a permit, my mother was not the driver so I have included:

3. Referring to the Particulars of Claim, as the Defendant was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident, the Claimant must rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") to recover the charge from the registered keeper. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the Notice to Keeper was issued in full compliance with all requirements of POFA, including (but not limited to) the prescribed timelines and mandatory wording. The Defendant maintains that the Notice to Keeper was non-compliant and defective, such that keeper liability was not established and there is therefore no cause of action against the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant will rely on the statutory limits under POFA and the authorities cited below (including Beavis and Somerfield) in support of the contention that the claim is wholly without merit.

For the contravention regarding parking at a hospital for her interview:

3. The Particulars of Claim merely assert that the Defendant is “pursued as the driver” for an unspecified breach of “prominently displayed terms and conditions”. No evidence has been provided of the alleged terms, the signage relied on, or how any contractual breach is said to have occurred. The Defendant has no clear recollection of events dating back to 2021 and is therefore unable to admit any alleged breach. The Claimant is put to strict proof of (i) the precise terms alleged to have been agreed; (ii) the location and prominence of the signage; and (iii) the factual basis upon which it is alleged those terms were breached. Accordingly, the Defendant will rely on ParkingEye v Beavis and ParkingEye v Somerfield as to the requirement for clear and prominent contractual terms and the prohibition on the recovery of penal or inflated charges.

ciantraingle

Coupon-mad said:

Go to the Template Defence thread!

One of those needs one version and the other one the other version.  You'll see when you read it.

I'm unclear which version to use. I was going to use this version for  both? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-with-added-admin-dra-costs-edited-in-2025/p1

ciantraingle

I've reviewed the thread again and to my understanding, I should use the paragraph 3 in the comment linked below for the contravention submitting by ParkingEye correct?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81571257/#Comment_81571257

Coupon-mad

ciantraingle said:

I've reviewed the thread again and to my understanding, I should use the paragraph 3 in the comment linked below for the contravention submitting by ParkingEye correct?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81571257/#Comment_81571257

Yep. No more than that for the PEye one.

ciantraingle

Coupon-mad said:

ciantraingle said:

I've reviewed the thread again and to my understanding, I should use the paragraph 3 in the comment linked below for the contravention submitting by ParkingEye correct?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81571257/#Comment_81571257

Yep. No more than that for the PEye one.

Thanks, will amend it to this one! 

Coupon-mad

I'd remove this from your other defence:

"Accordingly, the Defendant will rely on the statutory limits under POFA and the authorities cited below (including Beavis and Somerfield) in support of the contention that the claim is wholly without merit."