DCB Legal Smart Parking claim - Missed Defence Deadline - CCJ

faizers78

@Coupon-mad is this the thread you are talking about?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou

Johnersh

2020... Jesus wept. 

There should be a 1 year limitation period for parking charges, given that ppc's are routinely requesting details within days of the parking event.

Coupon-mad

Johnersh said:

2020... Jesus wept. 

There should be a 1 year limitation period for parking charges, given that ppc's are routinely requesting details within days of the parking event.

One to add to Question 33 answers in the government survey.

Nellymoser

faizers78 said:

@Coupon-mad is this the thread you are talking about?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou

Yes, now go to Post 2 Small Claim. Scroll down to  If you get a court claim, don't panic, 99% of defendants here, win!  

Follow instructions for the AOS and using C-mad's Template defence. You can post your  defence para 2/3 for others to review/advise before you submit it.

faizers78

Thanks @Nellymoser and @Coupon-mad

To make sure that the next steps I take are correct, I need to start the AOS, and I can do that through the MCOL website, here:



Once I do that I email DCB Legal something along the lines of the below:

----------------------------------

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref: [########]
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: [xxxxxx xxxxxxxx Ltd]

I refer to your Letter of Claim.

Please note that my current address for service is:
[Insert correct address here]
Any previous address must be erased from your records.

I dispute the alleged debt and will defend any court proceedings vigorously.

I further note the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is stated to have been issued on 4 July 2020. I have no recollection of this matter, nor any understanding of what the alleged contravention is about. Since that time, I have also changed address and do not recall receiving any reminders or notices regarding this alleged fine. Given the passage of time, I am also unable to confirm whether I was the driver of the vehicle on that date.

In accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), I request that this matter be placed on hold for at least 30 days while I seek independent advice.

I also require the following information so that I can properly understand and respond to the claim:

1. A copy of the original PCN, including evidence of the alleged contravention.

2. Confirmation of the original sum of the fine and a full breakdown of all costs, fees, and interest that have been added to the claim.

3. Confirmation of how much of the amount added to the original sum relates specifically to debt recovery fees, and whether these are net or inclusive of VAT.

4. Confirmation of whether the alleged PCN sum is being claimed as damages, or whether it will be pleaded as consideration for parking.

Until the above information is provided, I am unable to provide a substantive response to your claim.

Yours faithfully,

[Full name]

---------------

Once again, than you all very much for all the help and support, please confirm that is the correct approach and the letter working is appropriate and I will continue with the process.

If the approach mentioned is correct, what I should expect happens next? i.e. if I don't hear back from the CCJ or DCB?

faizers78

@Nellymoser and @Coupon-mad
 
I re-read the post again and I think I miss understood it the 1st time, so I need to complete the AOS and then posy my defence, which I am thinking something along the following lines:

----

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.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant breached terms of parking, but the Defendant has no recollection of the circumstances surrounding the purported Parking Charge Notice (PCN), which is alleged to have been issued on 4 July 2020. The Defendant changed address since that time and does not recall receiving any notices or reminders. Given the significant passage of time, the Defendant cannot confirm whether they were the driver and therefore denies liability in any capacity. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the alleged breach, the evidence relied upon, the identity of the driver, and compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in attempting to transfer liability to the keeper.

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.

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 is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: '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))'.

---------

Please confirm that I am in the right track now
Thanks

Gr1pr

So Smart Parking via DCB Legal 

Yes do your AOS on MCOL,  then you follow the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements 

Add the untruth paragraph as seen below,  and renumber 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6623910/pcn-at-claim-stage-dcb-legal-smart-parking#latest

Coupon-mad

Gr1pr said:

So Smart Parking via DCB Legal 

Yes do your AOS on MCOL,  then you follow the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements 

Add the untruth paragraph as seen below,  and renumber 

There are lots of examples of DCB Legal misleading the court and keepers about POFA liability in non-POFA cases. All Smart Parking claims this year include this misleading action in the claim particulars e.g.

TimBisley 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81594423/#Comment_81594423

basilpeach
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625981/defence-against-dcb-legal-for-smart-parking/p1

helpiamuseless66
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625722/smart-parking-dcbl/p1

kevmac25
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81622149/#Comment_81622149

Some or all of the above have the extra paragraph about the signatory misleading the court about POFA. You need to add that in your case too, making your defence 11 paragraphs.

Coupon-mad

@faizers78

And can you edit your thread title to make sense now and state in it DCB Legal Smart Parking claim.

The claim is doomed and they will discontinue anyway in early 2026.

But first please do the government's Public Consultation (if not yet done - thanks if so) as that deadline is THIS Friday. Then I strongly suggest this as well, which might start bearing fruit and seeing cases swiftly cancelled:

I encourage EVERY Smart Parking Defendant to report 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?

I mean it about those three complaints above. They are all done online and could easily see claims cancelled if any one of those agencies sniffs around.  

faizers78

Hi @Coupon-mad

I've updated the thread name—does it make more sense now? Happy to change it to something more descriptive if you have a suggestion

I have also completed the consultation in "https://consult.communities.gov.uk/off-road-parking-team/private-parking-code-of-practice-consultation/consultation/" I will look into reporting DCB to SRA, CSA and CMA later.

The AOS on MCOL has also been completed, this is what I see, please let me know if you think anything else is missing:



My updated defence below, please confirm that it covers everything and it's good to go:

-----

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.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant breached terms of parking, but the Defendant has no recollection of the circumstances surrounding the purported Parking Charge Notice (PCN), which is alleged to have been issued on 4 July 2020. The Defendant changed address since that time and does not recall receiving any notices or reminders. Given the significant passage of time, the Defendant cannot confirm whether they were the driver and therefore denies liability in any capacity. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the alleged breach, the evidence relied upon, the identity of the driver, and compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in attempting to transfer liability to the keeper.

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.

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. 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 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.

11. The claim represents systemic abuse of small claims.False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: '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))'.

-----

Thank you and all for all the support