DCB Legal Court Claim

ChonkyDonuts

Coupon-mad said:

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

Okay no problem, can you please then point me to a specific example that I can copy using a link, as clearly I’m not good at finding them myself. This is the first time I’m using MSE so I’m not too familiar and I’m overwhelmed.

Coupon-mad

I signposted you to two dozen. Read those and you'll see the form of words to use. Dead easy.

ChonkyDonuts

Coupon-mad said:

I signposted you to two dozen. Read those and you'll see the form of words to use. Dead easy.

Thank you, think I’ve found one where you’ve given them the go ahead. How does this read now?

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. 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 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. 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.

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 even know from the PCN or the POC what that time limit was. The Defendant has little recollection of the events, considering this occurred four years ago, other than admitting that they were the registered keeper, so questions arise 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 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.

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. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 3, research has proved that this Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable. This is important because the Defendant was not driving and, in fact, the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly/negligently misleading the court by citing that law. Despite many boilerplate claims from DCB Legal causing inflated default CCJs this year - as they have reportedly filed a 'job lot' of template bulk claims for this Claimant, all repeating the untruth about the POFA 2012 - Smart Parking has no cause of action against any registered keeper.

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 wastes court resources and reflects systemic abuse: parking cases now form a third of small claims. False fees drive bulk litigation that clogs HMCTS, with most defended cases ending in late discontinuance. Although costs don’t usually apply on the small claims track (r.38.6(3)), the White Book notes they may be awarded for unreasonable conduct (r.27.14(2)(dg))

Coupon-mad

Much better! I think you could remove this chunk which is covered elsewhere in the defence anyway:

"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 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."

And this new point could be added at the start of para 10, so it reads like this:

10. The recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) underlines the importance of ensuring litigation is carried out by qualified and authorised professionals. It cuts into the heart of bulk litigation and rips it out. In this case, the POC signatory does not appear to be on the SRA list for DCB Legal and the staff drawing up legal documents and attending Court Mediation to negotiate settlements are believed to be paralegals. Even if acting under supervision, this new authority holds that unauthorised staff cannot conduct litigation. Claims like this waste court resources and reflects systemic abuse: parking cases now form a third of small claims. False fees drive bulk litigation that clogs HMCTS, with most defended cases ending in late discontinuance. Although costs do not usually apply in the small claims track (r.38.6(3)), the White Book notes they may be awarded for unreasonable conduct (r.27.14(2)(dg)).

1505grandad

Para 2  -  "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."

Add the number "4" after Schedule

ChonkyDonuts

Coupon-mad said:

Much better! I think you could remove this chunk which is covered elsewhere in the defence anyway:

"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 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."

And this new point could be added at the start of para 10, so it reads like this:

10. The recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) underlines the importance of ensuring litigation is carried out by qualified and authorised professionals. It cuts into the heart of bulk litigation and rips it out. In this case, the POC signatory does not appear to be on the SRA list for DCB Legal and the staff drawing up legal documents and attending Court Mediation to negotiate settlements are believed to be paralegals. Even if acting under supervision, this new authority holds that unauthorised staff cannot conduct litigation. Claims like this waste court resources and reflects systemic abuse: parking cases now form a third of small claims. False fees drive bulk litigation that clogs HMCTS, with most defended cases ending in late discontinuance. Although costs do not usually apply in the small claims track (r.38.6(3)), the White Book notes they may be awarded for unreasonable conduct (r.27.14(2)(dg)).

Okay great! I’ve started putting this into my defence on MCOL. It doesn’t fit everything in, after I made the changes you suggested. Anything I can cut?

Coupon-mad

Show us the whole defence and we'll cut 'fluff' out for you.

ChonkyDonuts

Coupon-mad said:

Show us the whole defence and we'll cut 'fluff' out for you.

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. 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 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. 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 4. Outside the POFA, parking firms cannot invoke ‘keeper liability’. This legal point has already been tested on appeal (twice) in private parking cases.

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 even know from the PCN or the POC what that time limit was. The Defendant has little recollection of the events, considering this occurred four years ago, other than admitting that they were the registered keeper, so questions arise whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant. The Claimant is required to provide strict proof of all their allegations.

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. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 3, research has proved that this Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable. This is important because the Defendant was not driving and, in fact, the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly/negligently misleading the court by citing that law. Despite many boilerplate claims from DCB Legal causing inflated default CCJs this year - as they have reportedly filed a 'job lot' of template bulk claims for this Claimant, all repeating the untruth about the POFA 2012 - Smart Parking has no cause of action against any registered keeper.

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. The recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) underlines the importance of ensuring litigation is carried out by qualified and authorised professionals. It cuts into the heart of bulk litigation and rips it out. In this case, the POC signatory does not appear to be on the SRA list for DCB Legal and the staff drawing up legal documents and attending Court Mediation to negotiate settlements are believed to be paralegals. Even if acting under supervision, this new authority holds that unauthorised staff cannot conduct litigation. Claims like this waste court resources and reflects systemic abuse: parking cases now form a third of small claims. False fees drive bulk litigation that clogs HMCTS, with most defended cases ending in late discontinuance. Although costs do not usually apply in the small claims track (r.38.6(3)), the White Book notes they may be awarded for unreasonable conduct (r.27.14(2)(dg)). 

Coupon-mad

Remove this from para 1:

"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."

and remove this from para 3:

"The Defendant has little recollection of the events, considering this occurred four years ago, other than admitting that they were the registered keeper, so questions arise whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant."

And in para 4 change this:

"in fact, the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly/negligently misleading the court "

to this

in fact, the (unauthorised by the SRA) signatory of the statement of truth misleads the court