DCB Legal Court Claim - Defence statement proof read please

Romeo_Mars

Hi All

I returned home yesterday to find a letter from HM Courts and Tribunal regarding a claim pursued by DCB Legal in relation to a parking ticket. You can only imagine my frustration given that the car park in question is free and that I had already submitted an appeal (see below for info) online for which I received confirmation of receipt but no response. 

Dear POPLA assessor

I refer to .......................... issued by UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC). I am the hirer of vehicle registration .........., and for the purposes of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), I am its keeper. I am therefore submitting this appeal in my capacity as the hirer/keeper and formally challenge the validity of this PCN.

The PCN is invalid for multiple reasons outlined below and I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the charge.

1. No Evidence That the Driver Left the "Site"

UKPC alleges that the PCN was issued because the driver “left the site.” However, no evidence has been provided to substantiate this. There are no photos or video recordings showing the driver or occupants leaving the premises, nor any defined boundary indicating what constitutes "the site." I request that UKPC provide:

- A clear and dated site map showing the defined boundary

- Photographs of signs explicitly stating that leaving the site is prohibited

- Evidence of the actual driver leaving the site

If a parking attendant observed this alleged contravention, why did they not engage with the driver or clarify the site's boundaries? This is relevant to mitigation, as established in VCS v Ibbotson (2012) where District Judge McIlwaine noted:

"You say he left the premises... where does the premises start and where does the premises finish?... there is a duty to mitigate the loss.”

UKPC has not shown that a breach occurred, nor that the driver was ever aware of such a condition due to inadequate signage and undefined site limits.

2. No Landowner Authority

UKPC has not shown that it has a valid and current contract with the landowner granting it the authority to:

- Enforce parking restrictions

- Pursue charges in their own name

- Enter legal contracts with drivers

As required by Paragraph 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, UKPC must produce an unredacted copy of the contract showing:

- Enforcement dates, times, and applicable areas

- Definitions of services and responsibilities

- The landowner’s authorisation for UKPC to take legal action

POPLA case 1771073004 established that a witness statement is not valid evidence if a full contract could be produced but was not. I contend that any such statement, if presented in place of a full contract, must be rejected.

3. No Evidence of Any Breach of Terms and Conditions

The photographs on UKPC’s website merely show the vehicle parked in a bay. They do not demonstrate any breach of terms and conditions. There is no timestamped photo showing the driver violating a rule or sign stating that leaving the site is prohibited.

4. The Notice to Keeper Fails to Establish Keeper Liability under PoFA 2012

UKPC's Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the strict requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, particularly Paragraphs 8 and 9. Specifically:

- It fails to state the period of parking, only the time the vehicle was allegedly observed

- It fails to identify the creditor legally entitled to recover the charge as required under Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4.

- As the hirer, I have not been provided with the necessary documentation required under Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 for liability to transfer (i.e. hire agreement, statement of liability, and notice of transfer of liability).

Because of these omissions, UKPC cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability from the unknown driver to me, the keeper. As the keeper, I am under no legal obligation to name the driver, and I choose not to.

5. The Charge Is an Unlawful Penalty and Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss

This car park is free of charge. No fee was avoided, and no damage or obstruction occurred. Therefore, UKPC cannot show that they suffered any loss as a result of the alleged contravention.

In the absence of loss, this charge represents a penalty — which is unenforceable in contract law — and is not saved by ParkingEye v Beavis due to the absence of legitimate commercial interest or clearly communicated deterrent signage.

6. Inadequate Signage - Non compliant with BPA Code of Practice

The signage in the car park does not meet the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice:

- Signs are not prominently positioned or legible from all entry points.

- No clear reference to the alleged restriction on leaving the site.

- No defined site boundary marked or visible on signage.

Signage is a key component in forming any alleged contract. Without clear, visible, and understandable signs outlining the terms, no contract can be formed with a driver.

This PCN is fundamentally flawed. UKPC has failed to prove

- That a breach occured

- That they have authority to issue the charge

- That the keeper is liable

- That any contract was formed or broken.

I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and cancel the PCN

Anyway, attached is an image of the claim form.



I am now following the steps under "Post 2" in the newbies thread. 

So far
1. I have completed an AOS on MCOL system website to buy me some time to sort out my defence statement. This has all gone through and I have downloaded and saved a copy of the PDF file just in case for my records.

2. I have copied and adapted the defence template (a huge thank you to Coupon-mad for this)

Please let me know if the information provided for bullet point 3 is sufficient for the defense and Ill submit. 

Thanks

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). 

3. The vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the defendant was the hirer or lessee. The car was parked in a free customer car park provided on site, with no intent to contravene any terms. The Defendant subsequently lodged a timely appeal against the Parking Charge Notice, for which an acknowledgement receipt was received. However, no response to the appeal was ever provided by the Claimant or its agents.

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))'

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do.