ECP DCB LEGAL claim 2025

kryten3000

Who signed the Claim form?

BigToad31

On further reading I will omit paragraph 6 where it argues no loss

BigToad31

Furthermore, below is an image of the ticket I have, note only 1 letter of the reg is visible, which is what I suspect that will argue I entered this incorrectly when it comes to it.

Referring to https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81580928/#Comment_81580928 to further bolster my case

Coupon-mad

There's no way you only typed in F! Anyway they will discontinue in 2026 so you'll never get your day in court to discuss it!

BigToad31

@kryten3000 I don't see any signature on the claim form, it only requests my signature. However I will be filling this out in full online.

The basis of my defence (based on their claim of breach opf the terms on the sign? will be in somewhat the structure of:

The terms of the sign clearly state x price for x time, then refer to the fact I have evidence of said ticket with the time, time and amount paid. Regardless of what the fine print says the terms IMO are length of stay = x price and their claim is irrevelant as I have evidence to the contrary.

Once I've finalised my defence I will paste it in here for reference.

I am tempted to counter claim for the exact amount of their alleged costs under the reasoning that they think it's reasonable to charge me £267.52 for a PAID £7 parking fee so why is it unreasonable for me to claim the same for distress due to this process just for !!!!!! and gigs but I'll think about it.

I know full well I am not in the wrong here so I will be defending this to the bitter end.

As to the prebious post stating the reg error. If it comes to that again my argument will be referring to the fact as to why their machines are not doing any cross referencing and allowing incorrect registrations to be entered and paid for.

Will provide updates in due course.

I'll do the AOS on Sunday 28th and start my denfence and see what these gobshites say.

Gr1pr

The signature is probably on the back of the claim form,  if its not on the lower left 

The claimant is charging you £100 . It was always £100. The rest is various extras, allowed and otherwise 

A counter claim would need something more tangible,  possibly data protection,  with payment out and no guarantees,  yes their machines are known to be faulty 

Duke1999

It's rather telling that Sarah Ensnall's signature is absent, perhaps a sign they're wary of drawing attention to her prior involvement in litigation, given the concerns surrounding her conduct."

BigToad31

aaah yes apologies, Sarah Ensall has signed it.

Either way I doubt this will go to court and if it does I don't see a loss but again nothing is guaranteed. I'll due my due diligience and await the rest. Looking forward to mediation.

Gr1pr

BigToad31 said:

aaah yes apologies, Sarah Ensall has signed it.

Either way I doubt this will go to court and if it does I don't see a loss but again nothing is guaranteed. I'll due my due diligience and await the rest. Looking forward to mediation.

Exactly what I thought, but she may be the wrong person who is allowed to sign it, big thread debating this litigation issue going on at the moment on here

kryten3000

Yes. The consensus is that Ms Ensall is not qualified to conduct litigation and this needs to be questioned in the Defence in addition to the standard points:

"9.  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, it is averred that no 'conducting litigation' activity is allowed from unauthorised staff.

10. That is before even considering the doctrine of champerty in private parking cases, where some of these 'debt recovery' law firms are known to advertise that they 'front' court fees to fuel bulk litigation for commercial profit only when a sum is recovered. If this is the model used here - and the Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary - paying £ hundreds of thousands in court fees per annum and maintaining boilerplate parking claims with no sign of client (or authorised solicitor) involvement in the cases litigated looks to be contrary to public policy, as well as in breach of DVLA KADOE rules where the parking operator must be the data controller throughout. The arrangement would be unenforceable as a result. In Tactus Holdings Limited (in admin) v Philip Mark Jordan & Ors [2025] EWHC 133 (Comm), the High Court recently handed down an important reminder that, notwithstanding the changing nature of public policy, the rules against champerty and maintenance remain. See also Farrar & Anor v Miller [2022] EWCA Civ 295

11.  With or without a physical Deed of Assignment, claimants cannot assign a bare cause of action and solicitor firms must not engage in arrangements that give them a purely commercial interest in their clients' litigation. This law firm is believed to act on a bulk data exchange 'no-win-no-fee' basis. In view of that and the landmark Speechlys case (where submissions from both the SRA and Law Society were sought and the High Court held that 'supervision' by a solicitor is not sufficient) this parking firm Claimant - NOT the law firm - is put to strict proof that they are involved in all their cases, that their agents' conduct is lawful and that the staff are authorised to conduct litigation. Whilst contingency fee arrangements are not illegal per se, in order to uphold the integrity of the solicitor-client relationship and the role of solicitors as officers of the court, this sort of bulk litigation can and should be disallowed, particularly when the court service is overwhelmed and this industry has been identified by the last two Governments as in 'market failure' (super-profiteering is suggested by the MHCLG in the Summer 2025 Consultation).

12. The court is invited to strike out the claim and grant the Defendant's costs on the indemnity basis due to wholly unreasonable conduct. 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)) including in cases of late discontinuance, if that now occurs."