PCN Court Claim DCBL

Coupon-mad

Humanoid85 said:

Would ECP's PCNs have been non-PoFA in June 2022?  Just thinking about the Keeper not being liable to inform on driver

Unsure but don't worry about that or the signs, in your case.

THIS BELOW means the keeper will win and could even do a counterclaim if they want (say £300, costing a £35 fee if they fancy it) because according to your timeline, DCB Legal processed their data illegally:

An email was sent to DCBL in June stating the driver details, and these details were also submitted on their website. This was ignored, so the claim is made against the keeper.

Humanoid85

Coupon-mad said:

Humanoid85 said:

Would ECP's PCNs have been non-PoFA in June 2022?  Just thinking about the Keeper not being liable to inform on driver

Unsure but don't worry about that or the signs, in your case.

THIS BELOW means the keeper will win and could even do a counterclaim if they want (say £300, costing a £35 fee if they fancy it) because according to your timeline, DCB Legal processed their data illegally:

An email was sent to DCBL in June stating the driver details, and these details were also submitted on their website. This was ignored, so the claim is made against the keeper.

Many thanks for your reply.  I have been working on paragraph 3 of you template.  Some of your paragraphs have had to be removed due to the total length of the text.  Here's a draft so far (please let me know of any changes you recommend):-

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. 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 only admits that they were the registered keeper.

3(a). The Claimant's Parking Charge Notices that were sent in 2022 made no provision for informing the Claimant of the driver's details in writing so that liability could be passed to the driver. It is believed by the Defendant that for this reason the Parking Charge Notices were not POFA 2012 compliant. The Defendant received a Letter of Claim on the **th June 2025, from Claimant's solicitor, DCB Legal. The Claimant was informed of the driver's details via DCB Legal, by email on the **th June 2025, to the email address given in their Letter of Claim. On the ** July, the same email was sent again to the same address, with the additional note that no reply had been received. Both emails only received an automated email to say that the emails had been received. Approximately a week later, the same information was added and submitted on DCB Legal's “response web page”, as given on their letter of claim. No response was received at all, not even an automated email to acknowledge that details had been received by their response web page. The phone number provided by DCB legal, was an automated service for making payment only, so it wasn't possible for the Defendant to speak with someone to provide driver's details by phone. Every possible means was exhausted to provide the driver's details to prevent a claim being issued by the Claimant against the Defendant.

3(b). The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. ss 5(1)(b) and  5(1)(2) states that the Claimant is permitted to pursue a keeper where it does not know the driver and at any point after 28 days then commences proceedings. Due to the fact that a name and address of the driver was provided by email prior to issue of the court claim, it follows that there is no basis upon which Claimant may pursue keeper liability. The 28 day time period is not a time limit for transferring liability, but a time limit on the Claimant before they can begin proceedings. Proceedings is not defined in the Act. However, CPR 7.2(1) states ‘Proceedings are started when the court issues a claim form at the request of the claimant.’ As such, adopting the interpretation from the CPR, it is sufficient under the Act for the Defendant to name the driver and provide an address at any point prior to the Claim Form being issued. By providing the name and address of the driver of the vehicle on 30/06/2025, and as the Claimant as had plenty of time to make changes before a their claim as issued, any obligations as keeper have been discharged. The keeper in fact has the option to provide the name and address of the driver at any time up until proceedings are issued. Therefore the Defendant believes there is no contractual obligation for the Defendant to pay the charges in the claim. The fact that the efforts of the Defendant to inform the Claimant through the means given on the Letter of Claim have been ignored seems very unreasonable. The court is again invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4, as there exits no contract between the Defendant and Claimant.

4. 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'.

5.  Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, 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 are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' debt recovery agencies(DRA). Even in the event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

Humanoid85

Coupon-mad said:

THIS BELOW means the keeper will win and could even do a counterclaim if they want (say £300, costing a £35 fee if they fancy it) because according to your timeline, DCB Legal processed their data illegally:

An email was sent to DCBL in June stating the driver details, and these details were also submitted on their website. This was ignored, so the claim is made against the keeper.

Is there somewhere I can read information about the legality of how the data is processed, and how i could add this to paragraph 3?  thanks

Coupon-mad

A counterclaim would be put in separately but at the same time as defence. So, not just para 3 of defence ... unless you don't want to counterclaim.

The POFA Schedule 4 is the law that says once a driver is named (with address) the operator can no longer pursue the keeper.

Hence, this is a data breach under the DPA.

Humanoid85

Here's the defence I have so far.  If anything needs changing, adding, removing, expanding, or English needs improving, let me know.  Thanks for your help so far.

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. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221. 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'. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene.

2(a). The Claimant's Parking Charge Notices that were received by the Defendant in 2022, made no provision for informing the Claimant of the driver's details in writing so that liability could be passed to the driver. For this reason, it is believed by the Defendant that the Parking Charge Notices were not POFA 2012 compliant. The Defendant received a Letter of Claim on the **th June 2025, from Claimant's solicitor, DCB Legal. The Claimant was informed of the driver's details via DCB Legal, by email on the **th June 2025, to the email address given in their Letter of Claim. On the 3rd July, the same email was sent again to the same address, with the additional note that no reply had been received. Both emails only received an automated email to say that the emails had been received. Approximately a week later, the same information was added and submitted on DCB Legal's “response web page”, as given on their letter of claim. No response was received at all, not even an automated email to acknowledge that details had been received by their response web page. The phone number provided on the Letter of Claim, was an automated service for making payment only, so it wasn't possible for the Defendant to speak with someone to provide driver's details by phone. Every possible means was exhausted to provide the driver's details to prevent a claim being issued by the Claimant against the Defendant.

2(b). The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. ss 5(1)(b) and  5(1)(2) states that the Claimant is permitted to pursue a keeper where it does not know the driver and at any point after 28 days then commences proceedings. Due to the fact that a name and address of the driver was provided by email prior to issue of the court claim, it follows that there is no basis upon which Claimant may pursue keeper liability. The 28 day time period is not a time limit for transferring liability, but a time limit on the Claimant before they can begin proceedings. Proceedings is not defined in the PoFA 2012, however, CPR 7.2(1) states ‘Proceedings are started when the court issues a claim form at the request of the claimant.’ As such, adopting the interpretation from the CPR, it is sufficient under the Act for the Defendant to name the driver and provide an address at any point prior to the Claim Form being issued. By providing the name and address of the driver of the vehicle on **/06/2025, and as the Claimant as had plenty of time to make changes before their claim was issued, any obligations as keeper have been discharged. The keeper in fact has the option to provide the name and address of the driver at any time up until proceedings are issued. Therefore the Defendant believes there is no contractual obligation for the Defendant to pay the charges in the claim. The fact that the efforts of the Defendant to inform the Claimant through the means given on the Letter of Claim have been ignored seems very unreasonable.

3. The Claimant has misused personal data under the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR, by naming the wrong defendant when they were in possession of the drivers details before beginning proceedings. The Claimant is at all material times the data controller and the Defendant is a consumer, and as such, the Defendant is protected from loss and may claim damages arising from a data controller's breaches of the data protection principles.

4. Allowing for the claim to be treated in the most expedient manner, rather than the Defendant making a counter-claim, the Defendant simply and respectfully requests the court to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4 for all of the material facts raised in the previous paragraphs.

Coupon-mad

I think you could put this much more clearly:

"The Claimant was informed of the driver's details via DCB Legal, by email on the **th June 2025, to the email address given in their Letter of Claim." 

Maybe:

The Defendant transferred liability in accordance with the applicable law, by providing the name and address of the driver by email to DCB Legal on JUNE DATE, therefore there is no cause of action against the Defendant.

1505grandad

A pedantic observation  -  perhaps include the actual Schedule (4) of the Act in the following:-

"2(b). The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. ss 5(1)(b) and  5(1)(2) states..............."

Humanoid85

1505grandad said:

A pedantic observation  -  perhaps include the actual Schedule (4) of the Act in the following:-

"2(b). The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. ss 5(1)(b) and  5(1)(2) states..............."

I don't think I can due to the limit on the MCOL site.  Is it a word limit or character limit?  Will it say on MCOL if the defence statement has gone over the limit?

Coupon-mad

No it doesn't but you must be able to lose a sentence to accommodate this bit.

Humanoid85

Coupon-mad said:

No it doesn't but you must be able to lose a sentence to accommodate this bit.

Do you know what the limit is?