Help with Defence for Parking Fine - Bay Sentry Solutions / dcb legal please

Coupon-mad

No evidence goes at defence stage. Just words.

WS and exhibits come much later on. Read the info under the red shouty capitals heading 'IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN' in post 2 of the NEWBIES thread.

Le_Kirk

Some dates that might be helpful for you: -

Issue Date     Served Date    AoS Due      Defence Due

11/08/25         16/08/25          30/08/25        15/09/25

Tombrie

Hello
Have finally finished drafting my template defence adaptations below:-
Think it might need a further tweak as not entirely sure that my Para 1 wording is relevant in my case.  Should I include Paras 6 and 7 citing those cases. Wondered if those cases mentioned are correct to cite for my PC. Any advice / suggestions would be helpful.
Thank you in advance  

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 Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the allegation or the heads of cost. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. The Defendant denies liability for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair / open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant did not display prominent signage / road markings. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant has never provided the wording of the contract they rely upon in any correspondence and is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs. 

3. The Defendant, in trying to recall these events (which at this point were nearly a year ago), has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and driver. The Defendant disputes that they knowingly entered into any contract with Bay Sentry Solutions on 02/11/2024. Furthermore, the Defendant disputes that they stopped in a marked 'no stopping area' where a breach of contract could be said to have occurred. Signage was sparse. There was no visible signage in the entrance to this area advising a driver they were entering a private area. From the Defendants direction of travel along Whitehall Road no signage would be visible. The area in question appeared to be open derelict public land. 

3.1 The area was also not marked as a 'no stopping zone'. There were no red line or repeater signs facing the Defendant as they approached. On closer inspection of the signage photograph, it states, 'parking charges apply beyond this point', the Defendant did not pass beyond the sign stating that information. Photographic evidence from the 'Notice to Keeper' letter, clearly shows the defendants vehicle did NOT pass beyond the point where it could be said a contract had been entered into. The Defendants vehicle was in fact pointing in the opposite direction. The defendant further states they had a medical reason for stopping their vehicle to urgently use the nearby facilities. The defendant can provide medical documentation from their GP to confirm their ongoing debilitating medical condition. 

3.2 Some months ago the Defendant offered to send this medical proof to Bay Sentry Solutions when the Defendant appealed this Parking Charge. Unfortunately, the Defendants appeal was rejected without any request to see this medical evidence. 

4. 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).

5. 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 from poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

6. 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'.

7. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 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))’. There is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

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 in 2022 a 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'.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fairer-parking-drive-as-governments-crackdown-on-unjust-charges

Coupon-mad

Para 2 isn't exactly as per the Template Defence and it looks like you've removed two paras at the end.

Tombrie

I slightly tweaked Para 2 using a Para 2 from another DCB case - I can revert back to the Defence Template Para 2 if you think that would be better. I have not included Para 4 and Para 10 in my Defence Template. Para 4 because it states 'It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached.....' in my Para 3 I stated that the Defendant disputes ...... so I wasn't sure whether to then carry on and put in Para 4. Confused myself about that so left it out. However, reading Para 4 again I think it would still be ok to include? Para 10 left out because of the line count.     

Coupon-mad

Tombrie said:

Hi
Last November I made an emergency stop because of a medical condition on what I thought was disused land.

I did not see that I had parked in a No Stopping Zone. I had literally driven into the entrance and spun round facing back out towards the main road. A few days (5) later I then received from Bay Sentry Solutions a PCN.

The pictures of my vehicle show there were some small signs on a fence at the back of my car. In my haste I genuinely did not see these signs.

The PCN states I was parked for only 4 minutes in total.

The charge now stands at £265.04 which is extortionate for the amount of minutes stopped. I then appealed to Bay Sentry Solutions which failed.

They directed me to POPLA. I then duly appealed to POPLA which was also unsuccessful back in March.

Some months passed and finally in July I received a Letter of Claim from dcb legal for now £170.00.

I rang dcb legal to challenge this charge but was told I was out of the 30 days time limit.

Now I have received documents from the CNBC advising of a money claim made against me by dcb legal now for the sum of £265.04.

On physically going back to the site recently I can see that the parking sign in the actual car park would not have been easily visible to me from the direction I was travelling in.

Also it clearly states on the signs positioned at the back of my car that 'Parking Charges Apply Beyond this Point' Technically I did not pass beyond that point. So did not enter into a contract with Bay Sentry Solutions?

My car was pointing in the opposite direction and in fact on the road there is an arrow pointing forward proving my car was heading out and not into the disused land.

The car park can be seen on the left of my car. To access the car park a driver would have to drive a few hundred yards forward onto this land and then turn to drive through the actual marked entrance to the car park.

None of which I did.

Tombrie said:

Hi, Here is the Claim Form.

Coupon-mad said:

This PCN is a covert ticketing scam in 2 minutes flat, which is insufficient time to read t&cs.

And that is NOT marked as 'a no stopping zone'! I can't see any double red lines or repeater signs facing the driver as the approach. Not a 'no stopping' zone, then.

It's not that place near a Tesco in Leeds is it? Worst no stoping zone joke trap I've seen and we had some pictures on a thread or two if it's that place.

It would NEVER get past a judge!

I slightly tweaked Para 2 using a Para 2 from another DCB case - I can revert back to the Defence Template Para 2 if you think that would be better. I have not included Para 4 and Para 10 in my Defence Template. Para 4 because it states 'It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached.....' in my Para 3 I stated that the Defendant disputes ...... so I wasn't sure whether to then carry on and put in Para 4. Confused myself about that so left it out. However, reading Para 4 again I think it would still be ok to include?

Para 10 left out because of the line count.     

I think use the template, minus para 10.

By the way, I cannot see the location given on that NTK.

Looks like they are saying there was a windscreen PCN first but either way, the first postal notice must still name the location. Did you redact it or is it not on the NTK at all?

Interesting to see the BPA roundel on that NTK but BaySentry are in the IPC AOS now. Wonder when they forum-shopped?

And is it this place in Leeds? Worst (absence of lines & signs) no stopping zone ever:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576440/stopping-in-a-no-stopping-zone-private-land/p1

Tombrie

The location was given on a previous NTK dated 7/11/24.  There was no ticket on the windscreen just a NTK sent by post five days later.

Yes looks like it is the same place.

Will use the Defence Template minus the Para 10 then.

Will need to submit it tomorrow on MCOL before I run out of time. 

Le_Kirk

Tombrie said:

Will need to submit it tomorrow on MCOL before I run out of time. 

With an issue date of 11/08/25 and having completed the AoS after 16/08/25 and before 30/08/25

your defence deadline date is indeed 4.00 p.m. on 15/09/25

Tombrie

Defence successfully submitted today - I checked the claim history to make sure the defence had been safely registered.
Thanks everyone  

Tombrie

Have now received from the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) an acknowledgement receipt for my defence.
Waiting for the next stage which should be mediation.