Court claim for overstay at now closed Homebase site (G24)

DrGronod

Coupon-mad said:

Doesn't matter what you put because DCB Legal always discontinue G24 claims before hearings. But you could copy this one with the brand new bits instead of the usual Template Defence paras 9 &10 which you can replace:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6629202/bay-sentry-via-dcb-legal-issue-date-9th-September-poc-has-pleaded-the-alleged-contravention/p2

FYI - putting in the new sections 9 to 12 to replace the old 9 & 10 and taking all white spaces between paragraphs leaves about 9 lines for section 3. I have managed to keep my personal summary quite brief to 7 lines (and you say it doesn’t matter for this lot)  but others may struggle I guess if it is critical. 

Submitting today - thanks again for all help and guidance.

Coupon-mad

Thanks for that. I will work on making it more concise. It is only for DCB claims at the moment.

DrGronod

Coupon-mad said:

Thanks for that. I will work on making it more concise. It is only for DCB claims at the moment.

Actually I’m needing to add a couple of lines (forgot a salient point, although you do say it doesn’t matter but want to cover all bases!) - is there anything obvious I can miss out from the new paras?

Coupon-mad

Show us the whole defence and we can spot a line or two that can be removed.

DrGronod

Coupon-mad said:

Show us the whole defence and we can spot a line or two that can be removed.

I’ve actually managed to get it all in now to the limit, but I’ll post it here anyway. Feels a bit of a squash removing the paragraph separators but needs must! Needs to go this afternoon. 

TIA

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. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a

finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The

Defendant’s recollection of events are as set out below and admit

that they were the registered keeper.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is

not indebted to the Claimant.

3.1 The defendant parked at Woodside Retail Park Sheffield to shop

at Homebase. Due to a closing down sale he spent a considerable

amount of time deciding what to buy and subsequently spent £64.80

(and £104.95 the following week), plus visiting the toilet. He had 

no reason to believe he had overstayed the free parking limit as 

the time was only spent in the store. The car park was barely a 

3rd full and signage referring to the time limit minimal.

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 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.