PCN Court Claim DCBL

Humanoid85

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81874312#Comment_81874312

Here's a draft:

It appears that during this mediation, the counsel for the claimant misled the Mediator into believing that the defendant, as keeper of the vehicle, had 14 days from issue/receipt of the parking charge notice to transfer liability to the driver by providing drivers details to the claimant, and once that 14 days expired, the liability could not be passed on to the driver.  There is no such time limit on the vehicle keeper stated in the Act.  The only 14 day time limit stated in the POFA 2012, is on the claimant to serve a parking charge notice on the keeper within the 14 days of a parking contravention, in order for the creditor to pursue the keeper only on condition that claimant does not have the driver's details before beginning proceedings.  Claimant received the driver's details 2 months prior to beginning proceedings.

The misinformation provided by the claimant's counsel caused the Mediator to state "the 14 day time limit to transfer liability has long since passed, unfortunately" and further went on to say that the defendant would be liable for the claimants charges and interest, implying that the defendant's defence is ineffectual.

I take it that this can't be used in a witness statement?

Is the report likely to be taken seriously?

Coupon-mad

Yes report it.

And yes mention this in your WS.

The worst that can happen is that the judge ignores the lie, BUT it plants a seed in the judge's mind.

Humanoid85

Just had a standard response to the complaint.

Thank you for your complaint, in which you explained that you believe the mediator passed on incorrect information from the other party. I’m sorry that this left you feeling concerned, and I appreciate the chance to clarify how mediation works.

I understand how it can be unsettling when information shared during mediation doesn’t match your understanding of the situation. In mediation, however, anything the mediator relays comes directly from the other party. The mediator is simply the channel between you—nothing they say represents their own opinion or judgement. Their role is to ensure that both sides are heard and to help keep the conversation moving, not to interpret or verify the accuracy of what either party says.

It may also help to explain that mediators do not receive case details in advance. They do not read case files, examine evidence, or check whether statements made by either side are factually correct. Mediators handle a very large number of cases covering a wide range of disputes, so they are not in a position to determine who is right or wrong or whether a claim is legally sound. Only a judge can make those decisions, and only the court examines evidence.

Ultimately, the content of the discussion—and any decisions made—belong entirely to you and the other party. The mediator cannot impose an outcome, and you always retain complete control over whether to accept or reject any proposal.

I’m sorry if this process wasn’t clearly explained at the outset or if the experience left you feeling misinformed. Your feedback is important, and I hope this explanation helps reassure you about the mediator’s role and intentions.

Coupon-mad

Template waffle.

Humanoid85

I'm starting the WS. How do I expand upon the following?: -

Personal Data and Data Protection Act 2018

I believe the Claiman thas misused my 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.

Humanoid85

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82005056#Comment_82005056

I take it the PPSSCoP is a load of cobblers written by scammers for scammers, and the £70 is not enforcable?

Coupon-mad

Yes but you have to use the right argument v the added £70, which is the paragraphs about HHJ Moloney and linking or exhibiting that transcript, as seen in the WS by @JackR1

Humanoid85

Here's is a draft of the WS so far (ignore grammer errrors as they are formatting errors):

1. On the date claimed by Claimantfor breach of parking conditions, I was not the driver of the vehicle XXXXXX

2. Subsequent letters from Euro Car Parks provided no space nor returnaddress for providing driver’s details. Also, the letter did notmake clear that an appeals process had to be initiated to providethese details, nor did that seem intuitive or obvious as the letterwas focused on details being provided for contesting the claim.Parking Charge Notices from other companies provided space tocomplete the driver’s details and an address to forward theresponse to. I did not believe the notice was created seriously norcompliant with POFA 2012, and did not expect it to progress, and theclaimant chose not to progress it for three years.

3. [Redacted as it is too personal (copy PM'd to coupon-mad and Gr1pr)]

4. It wasn’t until 18thJune 2025, that Ireceived a letter of claim from the Claimant’s solicitor. Afterresearching, I found that according to Protectionof Freedoms Act 2012. Schedule 4, paragraphs 4(1)(2) and 5(1)(2), that I have the right to inform the claimant of the driver’sdetails before proceedings start.

5. I transferred liability in accordance with POFA 2012, by providingthe name and address of the driver to the email address stated on theLetter of Claim to DCB Legal on 30th June 2025, therefore there is nocause of action against myself

6. On the 3rd July, the same email was sent again to the same address,with the additional note that no reply had been received. Bothemails only received an automated email to say that the emails hadbeen received.

7. Approximately a week later, the same information was added andsubmitted on DCB Legal's “response web page”, as given on theirletter of claim. No response was received at all, not even anautomated email to acknowledge that details had been received bytheir response web page.

8. The phone number provided on the Letter of Claim, was an automatedservice for making payment only, so it wasn't possible for me tospeak with someone to provide driver's details by phone. Everypossible means was exhausted to provide the driver's details toprevent a claim being issued by the Claimant against me.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Schedule 4, paragraphs 4(1)(2)and  5(1)(2) states:

"Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle

4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges fromthe keeper of the vehicle.

(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5 are met

Conditionsthat must be met for purposes of paragraph 4

5(1)Thefirst condition is that the creditor—

(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle therequirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against thedriver because the creditor does not know both the name of thedriver and a current address for service for the driver.

(2)Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end ofthe period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice tokeeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover theunpaid parking charges from the keeper."

10. Due to the fact that a name and address of the driver was providedby email long before the issue of the court claim, it follows thatthere is no basis upon which Claimant may pursue keeper liability.The 28 day time period is not a time limit for transferringliability, but a time limit on the Claimant before they can beginproceedings against the keeper if they do not have the driver’sdetails. The liability remains with the driver until proceedingsbegin against the keeper if the claimant does not have the driver’sdetails.

"4(4) The right under this paragraph may only be exercised after theend of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which thenotice to keeper is given."

11. Although “proceedings” is not defined in the POFA 2012, the CPR7.2(1) states that ‘Proceedings are started when the court issues aclaim form at the request of the claimant.’ Adopting theinterpretation from the CPR, it is sufficient under the Act for theDefendant to name the driver and provide an address at any pointprior to the Claim Form being issued.

"The Civil Procedure Rules 1998
7.2—(1) Proceedingsare started when the court issues a claim form at the request of theclaimant.
(2) Aclaim form is issued on the date entered on the form by the court."

12. By providing the name and address of the driver of the vehicle on30/06/2025, and as the Claimant as had plenty of time to make changesbefore their claim was issued on 9/9/2025, any obligations as Keeperhave been discharged. The keeper in fact has the right to providethe name and address of the driver at any time up until proceedingsare started. Therefore the I believe there is no contractualobligation on me to pay the charges in the claim.

13. The only other time limits mentioned in POFA 2012, are 14 days and28 days time periods for the delivery of notices by a creditor to akeeper (except 21 days for a hirer). No day count time limit existsfor a keeper to inform a creditor of driver’s details.

14. The fact that my efforts to inform the Claimant through the meansgiven on the Letter of Claim have been ignored seems veryunreasonable.

PersonalData and Data Protection Act 2018

15. I believe the Claimant has misused my 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 long 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 adata controller's breaches of the data protection principles.

16. The Claimant, obtained personal data from the DVLA relating to thevehicle registered to me. The DVLA provides onlythe registered keeper’s details.

1. I, as the registered keeper and a consumer, informed the Claimant ofthe name and serviceable address of the driver responsible for thealleged parking contravention.
2. Despite this information, the Claimant commenced legal proceedings againstme, rather than the actual driver.
3. I was wronglynamed inproceedings solely because the Claimant failed to process personaldata accurately and lawfully.

17. Breach ofData Protection Principles:-

The Claimant is a data ontroller under the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR and is legally obliged to ensure that personal data is:

1. Processed lawfully, fairly,and transparently;
2. Accurateand kept up to date(Article 5(1)(d) UK GDPR);
3. Processedonly for specified and legitimate purposes.

By proceeding against me despite being informed of the driver’s details, the Claimant:

1. Processed the my personal data inaccurately, breaching Article 5(1)(d) UK GDPR;
2. Processedpersonal data for a purpose inconsistent with that for which it was obtained, contrary to Article 5(1)(b) and (c) UK GDPR;
3. Failed to respect my rights as a data subject, in breach of Section 34 of the Data Protection Act 2018(right to rectification of inaccurate data) and Articles 5(1)(d) and 16 UK GDPR, by continuing proceedings against the me despite being informed that I was not the driver.”
4. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/679/article/5 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/section/34

18. I have had to deal with the stress and incurred administrative and time costs in responding to these proceedings incorrectly directed against myself.

19. I believe and request the court that the claim be struck out as an abuse of process under CPR 3.4, because the claim arises directly from unlawful processing of personal data.

Inflatedand Unlawful Charges

20. In accordance with Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5&6)of POFA 2012, the Claimant is prohibited from recovering from thekeeper any sum greater than the amount of the unpaid parking chargesas they existed at the time the Notice to Driver was issued. The sumclaimed in these proceedings exceeds that statutory maximum and istherefore unrecoverable from the keeper. ( Protectionof Freedoms Act 2012 )

"(5)Themaximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of theright conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in thenotice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case maybe, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking chargeswhich are received after the time so specified)."

"(6)Nothingin this paragraph affects any other remedy the creditor may haveagainst the keeper of the vehicle or any other person in respect ofany unpaid parking charges (but this is not to be read as permittingdouble recovery)."

21. Explanatory Note 221 to Schedule 4 confirms that a creditor“maynot make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than theamount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when thenotice to the driver was issued.”  Any added sums—such as “debt recovery fees”, “latefees”, or other invented add-ons,arenot “parking related charges” within the meaning of POFA. Theseadditional amounts do not appear on signage, are not part of anycontractual parking charge, and are created solely by third‑partydebt recovery agents. POFA provides no legal basis to impose keeperliability for such DRA‑fabricated fees, even if (which isdenied) the Claimant had otherwise complied with POFA’s conditions.

22. To impose a penalty charge (PC), as well as a breach, the Claimant must show two things: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligations. 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 UKSC67( https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2013_0280_judgment_c7f37dda32.pdf ).

23. This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate sum; it is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable, and indeed it represents a penalty. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 98, 100, 193,198 of Beavis (an£85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated aprofit shared with the landowner); the court should also readparagraph 3.4 of the originaljudgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis (click here) ,confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation'.

Beavis vs Parking Eye Appeal Judgement

"98.Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge hadtwo main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parkingspace…. The other purpose was to provide an income stream toenable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the schemeand make a profit from its services, without which thoseservices would not be available”

"100.None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayerswhatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be outof all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner forwhom it is providing the service. But there is no reason to supposethat £85 is out of all proportion to its interests.”

"193...The scheme gave BAPF throughParkingEye’s weekly payments some income to cover the costs ofproviding and maintaining the car park. Judging by ParkingEye’saccounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary,the scheme also covered ParkingEye’s costs of operation and gavetheir shareholders a healthy annual profit...”

"198.….The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables themanagers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is herealso set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.…”

Beavis vs ParkingEye Original Judgement

"3.4 It will be noted that the site owner does not pay Parking Eyeanything for its services in operating the owner's car park. Rather(at least in this case) Parking Eye pays the owner a weekly amountfor the right to operate in that car park. Neither Parking Eye northe owner charges motorists anything for parking in the car park,provided they leave within 2 hours. So Parking Eye's sole or mainincome stream is derived from the sums it receives fromover-stayers: £50 if paid within 14 days; £85 if paid thereafter(less of course its operating costs including the costs ofenforcement). "

24. The binding judgment in ParkingEyev Somerfield Stores EWHC4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis, and stands as the only parking case lawthat deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (HighCourt, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate tothe minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to bepenal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

25. In addition to this, the ‘additional charges’ constitutes a double recovery, and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as found by HHJJackson in Excel v Wilkinson G4QZ465V in which £60 had been added to a parking charge.

26. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Following the before mentioned exaggerated costsand charges, the court is again invited to strike out or dismiss the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

Coupon-mad

Perfect. Except no 'e' in Judgment

Gr1pr

And, don't forget about the signed statement of truth at the bottom ( the new, longer statement. )