UKPC Claim Form Defence (DCB Legal)

JimmyGray

Hi, first of all, thank you for everyone's efforts on this forum. These cowboys need to be put in their place!

I have won a few appeals against PPCs in my time so I've been fighting the good fight but this is the first time it has gone to MCOL stage. I'm at the stage where I am drafting a defence after spending hours trawling through the various posts on here. As instructed, I am using the most up to date Template Defence but I thought I would post the specifics of my defence here in case I may have missed anything or over-elaborated it. Any feedback would be appreciated:

Particulars of Claim:

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC) issued to vehicle [MY REG] at Harbour Exchange, Harbour Exchange Square, London, London, E14 9GE.

2. The dates of contravention are 02/09/2024 and the D was issued with PC(s) 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: Parked For Longer Than Permitted
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:
1. £170.00 being the total of the PC(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment.
Costs and court fees

ISSUE DATE: 7 AUGUST 2025

Acknowledgment of service submitted: 12 August 2025

My non-standard defence paragraphs below, please note that I was the driver and the PC was only issued based on ANPR evidence (I had overstayed the one hour permitted stay by 23 minutes):

[STANDARD DCB Legal Paragraph]

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 02/09/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  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 £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

4.  The Defendant and his partner visited the Fika Café as customers at the Harbour Exchange. The Defendant returned to his car before the one-hour mark and waited for his partner to finish her work in the café, only leaving the Harbour Exchange after the hour had elapsed. This sequence of events is corroborated by a witness who can confirm that the Defendant went to sit in the car before the hour mark. Crucially, UK Parking Control Limited has provided no evidence that the car was parked in contravention of any terms or that it was left unattended, as required by point 20.5a of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which stipulates that clear, dated, and unaltered photographic evidence must be supplied to substantiate any alleged breach. Furthermore, there was no signage at the entrance to the car park, in direct contravention of sections 19.2 and 19.3 of the BPA Code, which require a standard entrance sign and clear, legible information to inform motorists of any parking terms and conditions. The absence of both supporting evidence and compliant signage means the alleged contravention is unproven and no contract can be said to have been formed between the Claimant and the Defendant.

Any feedback would be appreciated and thanks again!

patient_dream

"The Defendant is pursued as the driver"

Where did DCBL get that wonderful idea from as the DVLA only supply keepers info ??

"£170.00 being the total of the PC(s) and damages"

DCBL do not like using the words Debt collection so they try to confuse you and the court with another word ... DAMAGES ?

WHAT DAMAGES ? This is complete rubbish, UKPC are not entitled to damages 

Just another UKPC / DCBL junk claim.  Check the UKPC signs, they are terrible and even if you have binoculars to read the tiny tiny print, doubtful you will see the word DAMAGES ... it's just a fabrication

FAKE CLAIM which Judges are used to and that is why DCBL discontinue at an alarming rate 

For more info on these timewasters read this

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

Coupon-mad

Defence looks a bit long so make it more concise, and this sentence is old and out of date because DCB don't use the same form of words nowadays:

"No PCN was "issued on 02/09/2024" (the date of the alleged visit)."

In the meantime, please take part in the Government consultation! 

See this thread: -

11 July at 10:39AM<<<LINK 

JimmyGray

Thank you both for the contructive feedback.

@Coupon-mad Do you think I should remove the references to the BPA codes?

Coupon-mad

No I 'd remove this chunk:

" The Defendant returned to his car before the one-hour mark and waited for his partner to finish her work in the café, only leaving the Harbour Exchange after the hour had elapsed. This sequence of events is corroborated by a witness who can confirm that the Defendant went to sit in the car before the hour mark. Crucially, UK Parking Control Limited has provided no evidence that the car was parked in contravention of any terms or that it was left unattended, as required by point 20.5a of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which stipulates that clear, dated, and unaltered photographic evidence must be supplied to substantiate any alleged breach. Furthermore"

Gr1pr

As CM says, remove the NO PCN WAS ISSUED and change it to the newer no contravention blah blah 

JimmyGray

Coupon-mad said:

No I 'd remove this chunk:

" The Defendant returned to his car before the one-hour mark and waited for his partner to finish her work in the café, only leaving the Harbour Exchange after the hour had elapsed. This sequence of events is corroborated by a witness who can confirm that the Defendant went to sit in the car before the hour mark. Crucially, UK Parking Control Limited has provided no evidence that the car was parked in contravention of any terms or that it was left unattended, as required by point 20.5a of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which stipulates that clear, dated, and unaltered photographic evidence must be supplied to substantiate any alleged breach. Furthermore"

Thanks for the clarification. So do you think that it’s not worth pursuing the “you can’t prove I was actually parked with just ANPR entry and exit evidence” argument? 

JimmyGray

Gr1pr said:

As CM says, remove the NO PCN WAS ISSUED and change it to the newer no contravention blah blah 

Thanks for the advice. I cannot find the newer language which has "no contravention..." in? Is this DCB specific? Please can you post here if you don't mind. Thank you again

Gr1pr

Any recent dcb legal claim would suffice,  like this one 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6567118/euro-car-parks-dcb-legal-2025-defence-to-old-debt-claim/p2

So not a 6 month old example like you proposed 

JimmyGray

Gr1pr said:

Any recent dcb legal claim would suffice,  like this one 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6567118/euro-car-parks-dcb-legal-2025-defence-to-old-debt-claim/p2

So not a 6 month old example like you proposed 

My final draft is as follows:

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 02/09/2024, as alleged. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, the Defendant is unable to recall who was driving on the day in question, due to the time elapsed. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of clear, prominent, and legible signage. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

3.2  There was no signage at the entrance to the car park, in direct contravention of sections 19.2 and 19.3 of the BPA Code, which require a standard entrance sign and clear, legible information to inform motorists of any parking terms and conditions. The absence of both supporting evidence and compliant signage means the alleged contravention is unproven and no contract can be said to have been formed between the Claimant and the Defendant.

1505grandad

"The absence of both supporting evidence and compliant signage means the alleged contravention is unproven and no contract can be said to have been formed between the Claimant and the Defendant."

The contract (signs) can only be with the driver  -  the above seems to imply that, despite not knowing who was driving, you were the driver. 

Did you in fact read the thread kindly posted by Gr1pr  -  there were amendments suggested after the draft Defence.