Claim Form DCB Legal + extra parking charge added

xmountaindog

I am a newbie and hope the forum can help me. This concerns DCB Legal and Smart Parking Ltd and a Claim Form. I have read the newbies thread on the template defence to adapt for all parking cases.

Five years ago during the first covid-19 lockdown I parked in a budget hotel car park and received a parking charge notice which I chose to ignore. I received a few more letters and then heard nothing for 5 years. I then received letters from DCBL but this time they had falsely added an extra parking charge on the same date at the same location. The original parking charge was £100 plus a £70 fee. Five years later it was £340, titled “multiple unpaid parking charges”. I then received a letter of claim for £340 (mid July 2025). I chose to keep ignoring them.

But about a week ago decided to pay 1 of the parking charges (which I admit to), which I did online to DCB Legal by credit card. Then 4 days later I received a Claim Form with the total amount about £600 (keeping the exact amount vague on this forum). This was at least 30 days after the letter of claim. The claim form issue date is 2 days before I paid by credit card 1 of the charges. 

I can log into money claim online and understand about acknowledging service of a claim and can do this as longer than 5 days have now elapsed.

I am seeking advice on my defence. I have read the template and understand paragraph 3 is my own to reflect my own circumstances.

I do not have the original parking charge letters but believe 5 years ago I did receive photographic evidence for the parking charge. I definitely did not receive 2 packs of photographic evidence for the 2 parking charges they are claiming for. The first I knew about 2 parking charges was when the final notice of debt recovery letters started about a month ago.

I presume my defence is along the lines of 

1. A second parking charge has been falsely added to the claim

2. I never received photographic evidence of the second parking charge (because there wasn't one).

I started the acknowledgement of service but did not submit. I presume my intention is to “defend part of this claim” (as I have now paid 1 of them) although I understand from your "MCOL AOS help file" they will state this makes me liable for all of the charges.

There may well be lots of other things I need to understand and any help would be appreciated.

Coupon-mad

I am sooooo sad you paid one. Neither of them would have cost you a penny.

they had falsely added an extra parking charge on the same date at the same location.

OK and you were intimidated into paying the duplicate one and want your money back for this loss. Do a counterclaim for £200 plus the fee (£35) as well as defending the claim.

Show us the Claim form, redacted.

DEFEND ALL OF THE CLAIM.

xmountaindog

I am not able to upload anything yet as a newbie. Not sure how long it takes to have that privilege?

Coupon-mad

xmountaindog said:

I am not able to upload anything yet as a newbie. Not sure how long it takes to have that privilege?

Nobody can upload links here.

You just attach the pictures using the picture icon just above the reply box you type in. EVERY newbie can show pictures from day one.

xmountaindog

                

Coupon-mad

Are you sure the car didn't park twice at that location that day by the way? Could there have been two PCNs?

If not, definitely consider a counterclaim to push for your money back that you were frightened and intimidated into paying for the duplicate PCN; money obtained under false pretences.

xmountaindog

No it was just the one visit to the car park. 

Coupon-mad

                

Coupon-mad said:

Are you sure the car didn't park twice at that location that day by the way? Could there have been two PCNs?

If not, definitely consider a counterclaim to push for your money back that you were frightened and intimidated into paying for the duplicate PCN; money obtained under false pretences.

xmountaindog said:

No it was just the one visit to the car park. 

So it looks like DCB Group has received your PCN file twice and instead of realising (because these bulk files aren't looked at by a human) they just ran with duplicated PCNs and have let their system churn out a double claim, which - if they'd managed to claim a default CCJ - would have tipped it over £600, wrongly placing you at risk of HCEOs due to the magic 'over £600' sum of money.

And you were so misled and scared, days prior to litigation you paid the duplicate one (a ghost PCN), to try to prevent a small claim. The Claimants compounded their they conduct by ignoring the payment and claimed for over £600 anyway. This has caused immense distress and the payment extracted from the Defendant was not an admission of liability but a desperate last gasp measure and it was 'a transactional decision' that would not have been made if it had not been for the misleading action of the Claimants and/or their agents DCB Legal.

Misleading actions are illegal under the DMCC Act 2024 and an unfair consumer notice (their letter demanding double) is unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2025. The remedy is to refund the Defendant's money obtained by deceit (negligent or deliberate makes no difference) and for them to discontinue this incorrect claim seek court permission to file afresh. Hence the counterclaim which covers the money obtained by deception and a modest sum as a remedy for significant anxiety and misdirection of a litigant in person; the inaccurate data is a clear breach of DPA principles.

You must DEFEND IN FULL and the above info goes in as your paragraph 3 of the Template Defence but it needs putting in the third person: 'the Defendant' throughout.

The only way to get your money back is to counterclaim.

That's done on MCOL when defending. Needs to be properly pleaded as a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 (processing inaccurate data and causing the Defendant to make a 'transactional decision' that would not have been made if it had not been for the misleading action). Which is in itself a breach of consumer protection legislation: the DMCC Act 2024 (misleading actions) and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (unfair consumer notices).

xmountaindog

I really appreciate your time and advice. 

I will look at everything you have said over the next couple of days and prepare a defense and counterclaim. Thank you again. 

Coupon-mad

Counterclaim could be this sort of thing:

Part 20 Counterclaim

1. The Defendant counterclaims for damages of £300 for misuse of personal data under the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR and as a remedy for distress caused by the Claimant's misleading actions in breach of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ('the DMCC Act'). The Claimant is at all material times the data controller and the Defendant is a consumer and as such, the Defendant (here also a Part 20 counterclaimant) is protected from loss and may claim damages arising from a data controller's breaches of the data protection principles.

2.  There has been a quantifiable loss caused - a payment made by deception - and significant anxiety caused, both of which give rise to a counterclaim. There has been a clear breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA') in that misleading consumer notices duplicated the disputed parking charge and other spurious add-ons. Further, there is a clear breach of the DMCC Act, the enhanced consumer protection law against unfair and misleading practices.

3. The loss to the Defendant was the sum of £xxx extracted under duress and false pretences, days before litigation. The Defendant made no admission but felt forced into paying a 'ghost' PCN that did not exist. The Defendant was misled but desperate to prevent a small claim of over £600, having been alarmed by the risk of HCEOs due to the sum of money at stake having been inaccurately and unjustifiably doubled. The Claimants and/or their agents have misled the Defendant into making a transactional decision they would not otherwise have made, a situation that falls squarely within the DMCC Act (misleading action).

4. The principles of the Data Protection Act 2018 ('DPA') are as follows:

(a) Lawfulness, fairness, and transparency: Processing must have a lawful basis, be conducted fairly, and individuals must be informed about how their data is used.

(b) Purpose limitation:
Data should only be collected for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes.

(c) Data minimisation:
Only the minimum amount of personal data necessary for the stated purpose should be collected and processed.

(d) Accuracy:
Personal data should be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date. Inaccurate data must be corrected or erased.

(e) Storage limitation:
Data should not be kept for longer than is necessary for the purposes for which it was collected.

(f) Integrity and confidentiality (security):
Data must be processed securely.

(g) Accountability:
The data controller is responsible for demonstrating that they comply with all the principles and must be able to show how. 

5. It is for the Claimant to show how they complied (negligent data processing by them or their agents is no excuse for unlawful processing). The Defendant's case is that the processing was inaccurate and misleading, which led to unfairly inflated consumer notices. Under the CRA, unfair consumer notices are unenforceable and this includes the Letter of Claim and the Particulars of Claim which cannot pass.

6. The Defendant relies upon persuasive parking claim authorities including Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ferguson and Simon Clay v Civil Enforcement Ltd, both of which resulted in a financial compensation remedy (damages for distress) for the consumer. In Clay, the court found that improper processing of data constituted a breach of data protection laws. In Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46, the consumer was harassed and alarmed by demands for monies she did not owe. In that respect, this case is on all fours with that authority.

7. In light of all of the above, the Defendant counterclaims: £300 in damages due to:

a. the Claimant's breaches of consumer protection legislation, namely the DPA, the CRA and the DMCC Act. These breaches caused loss due to the Defendant being frightened and intimidated into transferring money to make it go away, yet the inflated claim was served anyway.

b. the distress caused to the Defendant by the wrongful pursuit of double the disputed parking charge. Similar DPA breach cases include Vidal-Hall v Google [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) which established that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages for a breach of the DPA could include non-pecuniary damage. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750, so this Counterclaim - where only part is damages for distress - is modest and reasonable under all the circumstances.

c. the Defendant's fixed costs associated with defending this claim and the costs of the counterclaim.

d. costs on the indemnity basis due to wholly unreasonable conduct in this litigation, including all of the above consumer protection law breaches and what seems to be champertous and disingenuous conduct by the Claimant's legal representatives in claiming an impermissible sum, having already banked monies without taking stock and alerting their client to amend the claimed quantum. Attention is also drawn to the distinct possibility of a Notice of Discontinuance from DCB Legal which they are known to do in thousands of defended cases per annum with no apparent reference to their clients. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "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))."

xmountaindog

Again thank you for your thoroughness and time. A huge help. I have some time tomorrow to go through everything and prepare a defence and counterclaim. Thanks again.