Letter of claim received from DCB Legal

Coupon-mad

yellowbeatle00 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Not on MCOL, no.

The OP should copy the other GBP Management defence - a thread that I recall replying on just days ago and they had adapted the usual Smart Parking defence. 

Hey, had a look through your profile and can't seem to find the thread you were referring to. Could you kindly link it? Thanks in advance (:

No I can't because I'd have to do the same search you could do. Either search for the thread or look through my replies.

I don't have it in my back pocket!

yellowbeatle00

Coupon-mad said:

yellowbeatle00 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Not on MCOL, no.

The OP should copy the other GBP Management defence - a thread that I recall replying on just days ago and they had adapted the usual Smart Parking defence. 

Hey, had a look through your profile and can't seem to find the thread you were referring to. Could you kindly link it? Thanks in advance (:

No I can't because I'd have to do the same search you could do. Either search for the thread or look through my replies.

I don't have it in my back pocket!

Was this the defence you were referring to? (Para 4 in particular) 

Mazur part was removed as per previous advice from someone else as it doesn't assist with permit holder area parking cases?

Thanks 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 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 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. Due to the significant passage of time since the date of the alleged parking event, the defendant has no recollection of ever receiving a compliant parking charge notice (PCN).  The Defendant does not accept that the Claimant has complied with the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012) in order to establish keeper liability. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that a fully compliant Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with the timescales and mandatory wording prescribed by the Act. In the absence of such compliance, the Claimant is unable to transfer liability for the alleged parking charge from the driver to the registered keeper, and as such the Defendant, being the registered keeper, cannot be held liable for the sum claimed.

4. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 4, research has proved that this Claimant is unlikely to have used or complied with schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, without which a parking operator cannot hold registered keepers liable

 5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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'.

9. 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'.

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 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.

11. 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

I'd change para 3 to:

3.  The POC are vague but there was one instance where a private PCN was found on the vehicle. If it was this instance, then it is denied that the car was parked and it is denied that a permit was required for mere minutes taken to collect and load an unwieldy heater from an upstairs flat, with the full permission of the resident.

3.1.  The Defendant saw this as a typical 'scam' unfair parking charge: predatory ticketing with no observation period. Briefly loading at a block of flats is not 'parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by residents (and authorised visitors) as was held in the 2016 Appeal case at Oxford County Court, in case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’. Miss Jopson was unloading furniture and HHJ Harris QC found that the position was analogous to the authority in Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] 2 All ER 728. In the Jopson appeal it was also held as a finding of fact, that stopping to unload was not 'parking' and that ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 had no application to a residential site, where there is no comparable retail park commercial justification or legitimate interest. If this claim is for that unfair parking charge at the block of flats, then it is an unenforceable penalty.

Umkomaas

Mazur part was removed as per previous advice from someone else as it doesn't assist with permit holder area parking cases?

That was me. Mazur isn't connected to any 'permit holder' cases, rather it is related to the signatory 'conducting litigation' in the claim. Traditionally DCB Legal conveyor belt claims have been signed by a paralegal, who, since recent High Court Appeal case of Mazur, cannot 'conduct litigation'. The signatory in your case is a qualified solicitor, thus Mazur doesn't assist. 

Hence my posts asking who had signed the claim against you. Hope that makes it clearer?

yellowbeatle00

Coupon-mad said:

I'd change para 3 to:

3.  The POC are vague but there was one instance where a private PCN was found on the vehicle. If it was this instance, then it is denied that the car was parked and it is denied that a permit was required for mere minutes taken to collect and load an unwieldy heater from an upstairs flat, with the full permission of the resident.

3.1.  The Defendant saw this as a typical 'scam' unfair parking charge: predatory ticketing with no observation period. Briefly loading at a block of flats is not 'parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by residents (and authorised visitors) as was held in the 2016 Appeal case at Oxford County Court, in case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’. Miss Jopson was unloading furniture and HHJ Harris QC found that the position was analogous to the authority in Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] 2 All ER 728. In the Jopson appeal it was also held as a finding of fact, that stopping to unload was not 'parking' and that ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 had no application to a residential site, where there is no comparable retail park commercial justification or legitimate interest. If this claim is for that unfair parking charge at the block of flats, then it is an unenforceable penalty.

Highly appreciate you taking the time out to reply! 

yellowbeatle00

Umkomaas said:

Mazur part was removed as per previous advice from someone else as it doesn't assist with permit holder area parking cases?

That was me. Mazur isn't connected to any 'permit holder' cases, rather it is related to the signatory 'conducting litigation' in the claim. Traditionally DCB Legal conveyor belt claims have been signed by a paralegal, who, since recent High Court Appeal case of Mazur, cannot 'conduct litigation'. The signatory in your case is a qualified solicitor, thus Mazur doesn't assist. 

Hence my posts asking who had signed the claim against you. Hope that makes it clearer?

Ahh this makes total sense, thanks for the reply again! 

yellowbeatle00

Hi All,

Received this email earlier on this morning after submitting my defence a few weeks back and although i believe the advice is to ignore and wait for the courts direction questionnaire, i wonder what the point of the email was and whether theres anything else i should be aware of?

If not next up, questionnaire and then court (:

Gr1pr

Standard stuff

All explained in the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements,  that nobody seems to read,  so please study them, especially 2 to 4

Then await the postal N180 being posted out from the CNBC in Northampton