Bay Sentry via DCB Legal, issue date 9th September, POC has pleaded the alleged contravention

Le_Kirk

Both your paragraphs 3.1 & 3.2 appear to be the same or at least very similar.

BeachWalker

Le_Kirk said:

Both your paragraphs 3.1 & 3.2 appear to be the same or at least very similar.

Thanks for input, not sure how to word it and it's been soo long back in 2021 
So you recommend keep it to just 1 paragraph? Is that too little details of a defence?

 I found the thread on new template from coupon mad edited August. So will use that and put into Mcol online 

Coupon-mad

It's this bit that is repetition:

"The defendant had no reason to believe they had overstayed a free parking period as a visitor’s permit was displayed and permission was granted by the flat owner who has an allocated car park space with no time restrictions presented to the defendant."

Remove that repetition and amalgamate your remaining words into a single para 3, which goes into the Template Defence. 

You should also add this INSTEAD of paragraphs 9 & 10 of the Template Defence:


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, this new authority holds that unauthorised staff cannot conduct litigation.

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.

Coupon-mad

Tell us if all that fits on MCOL (like I say, REPLACING the last 2 paras of the Template Defence). This is new today and you are the first to try to make this all fit!

NB: the hyperlinks won't work as links in MCOL but that's fine. I'll leave them as links in the above post so people can read the cases concerned.

BeachWalker

Coupon-mad said:

Tell us if all that fits on MCOL (like I say, REPLACING the last 2 paras of the Template Defence). This is new today and you are the first to try to make this all fit!

NB: the hyperlinks won't work as links in MCOL but that's fine. I'll leave them as links in the above post so people can read the cases concerned.

Many Thanks for this! 
We have edited our Para 3 and struggling to squeeze all of this into MCOL with the replaced paragraphs.
We had edited our Para 3 to 190 words but this was too big.
We removed as many Empty spaces and blank lines to make room
This left us able to squeeze 75 words in for Para 3 and that just fits.
Not submitted yet thought would update you first 

Coupon-mad

Show us the whole defence. 

BeachWalker

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). The Defendant 

has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to 

admit that they were the registered keeper. 

3. On 19/11/21 the Defendant parked at Phoenix House car park to  

visit a friend who lives in the flats there. The Defendant parked  

in the space allocated to the flat owner and displayed a valid  

visitor permit provided by the resident. The friend did not own a  

vehicle at the time,nor was using the space and was therefore  

entitled to permit its use by visitors.Permission to park was  

explicitly granted by the resident.No contravention occured. 

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.  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, this new authority holds that 

unauthorised staff cannot conduct litigation. 

 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 

lawfuland 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. 

Coupon-mad

That's good.  If you needed to remove a few words you can cut things down by changing phrases like thus:

"3. On 19/11/21 the Defendant parked at Phoenix House car park to visit a friend who lives in the flats there"

to this

3. The Defendant parked at the site to visit a resident.

BeachWalker

Coupon-mad said:

That's good.  If you needed to remove a few words you can cut things down by changing phrases like thus:

"3. On 19/11/21 the Defendant parked at Phoenix House car park to visit a friend who lives in the flats there"

to this

3. The Defendant parked at the site to  

visit a resident.

Nice one thanks for your feedback and hardwork to help people in this situation.

Il get it submitted