DCB Legal Court Claim

ChonkyDonuts

Hi, I’ve recently received 2 letters in the past month regarding a parking charge issued in 2021. The first is a “Letter of Claim” from DCB Legal and the second is a Claim Form from HM Courts and Tribunals Service. I have received NO correspondence prior to these 2 letters regarding this. I have lived at 2 previous addresses and had nothing regarding this during my time at either of those addresses. Surely theres a cutoff period for when they can claim against me? It’s been 4 years, I can't recall anything from the dates of alleged contravention. The HMCT letter didn’t turn up at my address until 26th, with the issue date being the 20th. So I’ve already lost nearly a week’s time to respond to their 14 day response period. Confused and angry, not sure what to do next. When I received the first letter from DCB Legal, I tried to call them and didn’t get through, I left my contact information on a voicemail to return my call and they never called back. Last thing I need right now is a CCJ. Can anyone help?

DE_612183

1. Read the newbies thread.

2. You will not get a CCJ, unless 1. You go to court ( unlikely to happen with DCBL ), 2. you lose at court and 3. you fail to pay the amount awarded in court ( couple of hundred at most ).

Follow the instructions in the newbies thread and you will pay nothing.

Gr1pr

Study a dozen recent Smart Parking DCB Legal cases on here,  same advice as those, ensure that you have logged into MCOL via your government gateway account and complete the AOS online first 

Coupon-mad

Contract law allows 6 years to sue.

Just copy & adapt any other Smart Defence. There are hundreds here right now. Read some over the weekend and do the same as them.

Your defence is in the Template Defence thread but copy the usual 'POFA untruth' wording from other Smart claim threads. They are all the same.

And even though this is stressful: please please do the government's Public Consultation.

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline (this time next week). 

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread. I have covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

ONE WEEK TO GO.

ChonkyDonuts

Coupon-mad said:

Contract law allows 6 years to sue.

Just copy & adapt any other Smart Defebce. There are hundreds here right now. Read sime over the weekend and do the same as them.

Your defence is in the Template Defence thread but copy the usual 'POFA untruth' wording from other Smart claim threads. They are all the same.

And even though this is stressful: please please do the government's Public Consultation.

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline (this time next week). 

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread. I have covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

ONE WEEK TO GO.

Found a similar case to mine where defendant had no recollection of charges as they were from years ago. Have adapted their defence but with my own contravention dates. Is this suitable or do I need to change anything?

PoC:  

Particulars of Claim  

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park. 

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 30/05/2021, 09/06/2021 and 13/06/2021 

3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Insufficient Paid time 

4. In the alternative, the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4. 

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 

1. £510.00 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages. 

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.06 until judgment or sooner payment. 

3. Costs and court fees 

 

IN THE COUNTY COURT 

Claim No:   

Between 

SMART PARKING LTD 

(Claimant)  

- and -   

xxxxx                   

 (Defendant) 

 

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 a 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, as well as further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of the events, save as set out below, and admits that they were the registered keeper.  

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 30/05/2021, 09/06/2021 or 13/06/2021 as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant does not know from the PCN or the POC what that time limit was. The Defendant has little recollection of the events, considering they occurred four years ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper. This raises questions about 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 woefully 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. 

3.1  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, and the transcripts will be adduced in evidence: 

i. In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re: claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that were a remedy, then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  His Honour Judge Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting ‘on behalf of’ the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA, but did not. Mr Smith’s appeal was allowed, and Excel’s claim was dismissed. 

ii. In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan, sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re: claim H0KF6C9C), held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  His Honour Judge Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. “My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion...” Mr Edward’s appeal succeeded, and the claim was dismissed. 

 

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 and unfair terms/notices. Given the limited information available, this case appears no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs. 

Paragraphs 5-10 copied from template.

Coupon-mad

You aren't meant to put those headings at the top. The Template Defence would say if they were needed and they are not. That poster got a bit muddled and I have replied to them. 

This one is better (obviously don't copy the last bit about their PCNs being already cancelled):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81623208/#Comment_81623208

But first please do the Public Consultation as that deadline is Friday.

Then submit your defence which you have 3 weeks to do, as long as you've completed the AOS online first, to buy that extra time?

Then I strongly suggest this as well which might start bearing fruit and seeing cases swiftly cancelled:

EVERY Smart Parking Defendant should now be reporting DCB Legal to:

- the SRA (Solicitors Regulatory Authority) for alleged systemic breach of their professional standards;

- the CSA (Credit Services Association) for alleged systemic breach of their standards for fair and not misleading debt recovery letters;

- the CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) for alleged systemic breach of the Joint Code and therefore, the DMCC Act 2024;

All three complaints triggered by two things:

1. the 'misleading action' of using boilerplate POFA worded Particulars of Claim which (for ALL claims involving this client) blatantly lie to recipient Defendants about 'keeper liability' under a law that Smart Parking never used until this year. This misleading action has been repeated in tens of thousands of ancient, barrel scraping (2020/21 COVID pandemic / lockdown dated) Smart Parking court claims this year already

and

2. the misleading action of (if they still are...?) sending LBC demands on DCB Legal headed notepaper which carries the blue strap-line "Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away!" which is vexatious and wholly unreasonable for this law firm to use  (DCB Legal are not bailiffs). That appalling fly on the wall TV show features DCB Ltd not DCB Legal and only cases at a stage after obtaining judgment and HCEO writ. These Limited companies are two different legal entities and the LBC was sent at PRE action stage when there was no possibility of them - or any firm in DCB 'Group' - removing goods.

IMHO: These two points must be investigated as a possible breach of standards for a solicitor, surely?

ChonkyDonuts

Hi, so I’m finalising my defence today to send to MCOC. I’ve integrated the sections you’ve highlighted from the link. Is this ready to send off or is there anything I’ve not understood/missed?

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 a 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, as well as further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of the events, save as set out below, and admits that they were the registered keeper.  

3.  The defendant denies all claims made by the Claimant. The Defendant has little or no knowledge or recollection of events on the dates stated. The vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper around this time. 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 30/05/2021, 09/06/2021 or 13/06/2021, as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant was 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.

3.1  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, and the transcripts will be adduced in evidence: 

i. In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re: claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that were a remedy, then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  His Honour Judge Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting ‘on behalf of’ the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA, but did not. Mr Smith’s appeal was allowed, and Excel’s claim was dismissed. 

ii. In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan, sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re: claim H0KF6C9C), held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  His Honour Judge Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. “My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion...” Mr Edward’s appeal succeeded, and the claim was dismissed. 

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.

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 and unfair terms/notices. Given the limited information available, this case appears no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs. 

Paragraphs 5-10 copied from template.

Coupon-mad

Is this suitable?

No. A defence submitted on MCOL does NOT include headings nor quote their POC!

Copy one that's linked in page 14 of the thread I linked (the Public Consultation info). There are two dozen Smart claim threads there!

Gr1pr

To be clear, you wont be sending anything,  anywhere 

You will be copying and pasting your final draft into the MCOL defence box 

ChonkyDonuts

Coupon-mad said:

Is this suitable?

No. A defence submitted on MCOL does NOT include headings nor quote their POC!

Copy one that's linked in page 14 of the thread I linked (the Public Consultation info). There are two dozen Smart claim threads there!

I’m confused. I’ve already copied from the 2nd link from the Smart Parking link on page 14 and just adapted my dates but you’ve just said it’s still not okay?

Coupon-mad

You either chose a bad one or you only looked at their first effort that we then corrected.