DCB Legal £9,000 Smart Parking Claim – Need Help Fighting Back

ChirpyChicken

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81926223#Comment_81926223

I dont think this would be appropiate do you?

A4BZ

Hi all,

Just another quick update as there have been some further developments since my last post.

Firstly, thank you again for all the help so far — it’s genuinely appreciated.

Since my previous update, I have now become aware that the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the Mazur/CILEX litigation-authority appeal on 31 March 2026, overturning the earlier High Court position and effectively confirming that unauthorised persons/paralegals may conduct litigation under supervision on behalf of an authorised firm/solicitor.

In light of that, it seems the (Removed by Forum Team) / litigation-authority point is now likely much weaker than it previously appeared, although I still note that no substantive response was ever provided by DCB to the earlier requests for clarification regarding authority and supervision.

More significantly, on 6 May 2026, a second completely separate claim form (N1SDT) was issued by the same Claimant and DCB Legal in relation to the exact same location (St Paul’s Centre, Enfield), this time for £2,204.04.

The particulars only state alleged contraventions between:
27/06/2022 and 03/11/2022.

An Acknowledgment of Service will be filed in relation to that second claim to protect position and ensure future correspondence is sent directly to my partner in prison rather than the old residential address.

At present, I still have not received in relation to the main claim for £12,587.40:

• the alleged PCNs,
• copies of Notices to Keeper,
• photographs/signage evidence,
• the landowner contract,
• or a breakdown showing exactly which PCNs form part of the claim.

That larger claim was allocated to the Small Claims Track by Notice of Allocation dated 4 March 2026 and remains listed for hearing on 2 July 2026 by CVP at Norwich County Court.

Given that there are now two separate claims from the same Claimant/legal representatives relating to the same site, I will also be seeking clarification from DCB Legal regarding the PCN references and dates relied upon in both matters.

My understanding at present is that the primary defence points now likely remain:

• no keeper liability / non-POFA compliance,
• strict proof of driver identity,
• inflated and unjustified add-ons,
• signage / contractual issues,
• and potentially any issues arising from fragmentation of claims once the full PCN schedules become clear.

The Claimant still has until 4 June 2026 to pay the hearing fee in the main claim.

I understand that if the hearing proceeds, the witness statement/evidence stage will likely become important around mid-June once disclosure is exchanged.

Does this still sound like the correct overall strategic/procedural approach at this stage?

Particularly interested in thoughts regarding:

• the second claim,
• whether requesting clarification of all PCN dates/references now is sensible,
• and how people would approach matters moving forward pending disclosure.

Thanks again everyone.

A4BZ

Just to add one further point following the above, one of the biggest concerns here is the long-term impact of potential CCJs.

Whilst my partner is currently incarcerated and has no meaningful ability to pay large sums, we have worked very hard to maintain his credit position and overall financial stability as much as possible during this period. His credit score currently remains relatively strong (around 1100/1250), and the concern is that one or more CCJs of this scale could severely impact his ability to rebuild life properly on release in future years, particularly regarding housing, finance and general rehabilitation.

That is partly why I am trying to approach this in the most organised and procedurally correct way possible, rather than simply ignoring matters.

Again, any thoughts on the best way to navigate this overall situation are genuinely appreciated.

Gr1pr

The Henderson vs Henderson estoppel case may be of use in multiple claims if its all the same details, same claimant, same legal company, same location etc

Coupon-mad

on 6 May 2026, a second completely separate claim form (N1SDT) was issued by the same Claimant and DCB Legal in relation to the exact same location (St Paul’s Centre, Enfield), this time for £2,204.04.

The particulars only state alleged contraventions between:
27/06/2022 and 03/11/2022.

Search the forum for Henderson estoppel.

The Defendant should add a paragraph about that to the new defence.

No CCJ is risked as long as he:

• defends this one and
• attends the hearing re the first one and
• knows how to explain his defence position in the hope of winning the case.

If he did lose at the hearing, it may well be for fewer PCNs than all those in the claim and he'd have to ask the judge to grant a payment arrangement that doesn't cause a CCJ as that would be disproportionate and would ruin his prospects and financial capability when he is freed.

Hopefully, DCB Legal might discontinue despite the high value claim, given he is in prison and hopefully owns nothing the bailiffs could grab?

A4BZ

Hi all,

Thank you again for the replies, especially GR1PR and Coupon-mad for pointing me towards Henderson v Henderson / claim-splitting.

I have now checked both claim forms properly and can confirm the position more clearly.

The main claim is Claim No. M5KF2J8Z. It was issued on 5 August 2025 and is for £12,587.40. The Particulars state that it relates to 53 PCNs issued to vehicle registration BU70SYE at St Paul’s Centre, Enfield, with alleged contravention dates between 7 December 2020 and 21 June 2022. The reason stated is “unauthorised parking”. The Particulars state £9,010 being the total of the PCNs and damages, which works out as £170 per PCN, plus interest, court fee and legal representative costs.

The second claim is Claim No. N5KF1F68. It was issued on 6 May 2026 and is for £2,204.04. The Particulars state that it relates to 9 PCNs for the same vehicle, same site, same Claimant and same solicitors, with alleged contravention dates between 27 June 2022 and 3 November 2022. Again, the reason stated is “unauthorised parking”. The Particulars state £1,530 being the total of the PCNs and damages, again working out as £170 per PCN, plus interest, court fee and legal representative costs.

So, on the face of the Particulars, the two claims do not appear to directly duplicate dates. However, the second claim starts only six days after the period covered by the first claim ends, and all 9 PCNs in the second claim clearly existed before the first claim was issued in August 2025.

I have now sent DCB Legal a CPR 31.14 request in relation to the second claim, asking for:

• the 9 PCNs / Notices to Keeper;
• PCN reference numbers and dates;
• ANPR images;
• signage;
• landowner authority/contract;
• POFA Schedule 4 documents;
• a full breakdown of the £2,204.04 claimed;
• and confirmation that these 9 PCNs are entirely separate from the 53 PCNs in the main claim.

I have asked DCB to provide the documents by close of business on Thursday 4 June 2026 due to the live defence deadline. As the second claim was issued on 6 May 2026 and AOS has been filed, I understand the defence deadline is likely to be around Monday 8 June 2026.

If DCB ignore the CPR request, my current thinking is to plead that in the defence rather than making an application to court at this stage. The defence would state that documents were requested, but DCB failed to provide the PCNs, NTKs, signage, POFA material, landowner authority and breakdown before the defence deadline.

My plan is to prepare the second claim defence this weekend and include:

• Henderson v Henderson / improper claim-splitting;
• request that the second claim be struck out or dismissed as an abuse of process;
• same Claimant, same solicitors, same vehicle, same site and same alleged parking scheme;
• all 9 PCNs existed before the first claim was issued in August 2025;
• no admission as driver;
• strict proof of POFA Schedule 4 compliance;
• strict proof of signage/contract;
• strict proof of landowner authority;
• £170 per PCN / inflated sums;
• strict proof of interest calculation;
• and DCB’s failure to provide the requested documents.

Would people agree that Henderson / claim-splitting should be pleaded strongly in the second defence?

Also, should Henderson be mentioned at all in the main claim witness statement/defence position as background conduct, or is it better kept mainly for the second claim?

Separately, on the main claim M5KF2J8Z, the hearing fee deadline is 4 June 2026 and the final hearing is listed for 2 July 2026 by CVP. A production/video-link order was made on 12 March 2026 for my partner to attend remotely from custody. The very next day, on 13 March 2026, Holly Slater at DCB Legal emailed offering to settle the £12,587.40 claim for £5,000.

I appreciate that may not prove anything legally, but the timing seems quite telling commercially, given it came immediately after the court made arrangements for my partner’s attendance from custody.

One final side question, as Coupon-mad mentioned CCJs/enforcement. I know this is thinking ahead and hopefully it does not get anywhere near this stage, but my partner’s only meaningful asset is our jointly owned mortgaged leasehold property. If worst case happened and he lost, would enforcement agents realistically try to attend the property and remove household items such as TVs etc., especially where I live there alone and many items are mine? Or is the more realistic risk the CCJ/credit-file impact and possible longer-term enforcement routes rather than anyone immediately trying to remove belongings?

Any thoughts on the above, especially the second claim defence wording and Henderson point, would be really appreciated.

Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

Yes of course Henderson applies. It doesn't mean two claims for the same PCNs, it means that all PCNs had to be brought in that first claim.

"contravention dates between 27 June 2022 and 3 November 2022"

So they haven't provided a detailed POC with dates? Why on earth did you contact them asking for all the details? That ruins the defence point that they haven't complied with Part 16.

"worst case happened and he lost, would enforcement agents realistically try to attend the property and remove household items such as TVs etc.,"

Yes if he loses DCB will be round like a shot.

ChirpyChicken

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82015842#Comment_82015842

But CM is being overly dramatic and I dont think makes clearly they are easily got rid of(don't worry,I can assist).

They have no right of entry so its mute

Does DCB legal have the prison as his current address or your home

A4BZ

Thanks Coupon-mad / ChirpyChicken.

I see the point about not helping them repair vague Particulars, and that wasn’t my intention.

The reason I sent the CPR 31.14 request in relation to the second claim was because it may also assist with understanding the position across both claims. Both claims involve the same Claimant, same solicitors, same vehicle, same location and the same alleged parking scheme. Also, all PCNs in both claims pre-date the issue date of the first large claim, so my thinking was that this supports the Henderson / claim-splitting point because they could seemingly have brought everything in one claim.

That said, I understand the concern that asking for all details could potentially weaken the point that the Particulars are vague / non-compliant with Part 16. Would the correct approach now be to still plead that the Particulars are insufficiently detailed, because they only give a broad date range, total number of PCNs and total sum, without properly particularising each PCN/date/reference/signage/contractual basis?

DCB have been made aware multiple times that my partner is in custody and that correspondence/documents must be sent directly to his custodial address, not the residential address. The court has also been informed. His custodial address may change again shortly because he is expected to move back to the establishment he was previously moved from following an emergency evacuation after an arson incident, so both DCB and the court have been told that his address may change again.

On a more personal note, I know he is currently in custody, but he is not a bad person. He made serious mistakes and got involved with the wrong crowd, but he wants to come out, rebuild properly, return to legitimate work and continue with his building surveying career. That is partly why I am trying so hard to deal with these claims properly rather than just ignore them, because the long-term impact of CCJs/enforcement could seriously affect his ability to rebuild when he is released.

On the enforcement point, thank you ChirpyChicken — that is reassuring. My concern was mainly practical, because his only meaningful asset is our jointly owned mortgaged leasehold property and I live there alone. I wanted to understand whether enforcement agents could realistically attend and try to remove household items, especially items belonging to me. I appreciate this is thinking ahead and hopefully never becomes relevant, but I just wanted to understand the worst-case position.

At this stage, my plan is still to prepare the defence for the second claim while waiting to see whether the trial fee is paid for the main claim on 4 June.

For the second claim, the current plan is to include:

• Henderson v Henderson / improper claim-splitting;
• request that the second claim be struck out or dismissed as an abuse of process;
• insufficient/vague Particulars;
• no admission as driver;
• strict proof of POFA Schedule 4 compliance;
• strict proof of signage/contract;
• strict proof of landowner authority;
• £170 per PCN / inflated sums;
• strict proof of interest calculation;
• and DCB’s failure to provide documents when requested.

Does that still sound like the right way to plead it, despite the CPR request already having been sent?

Any wording suggestions for the Henderson / claim-splitting paragraph would be really appreciated.

Le_Kirk

In order to assist you with defence deadlines, please tell us the dates of issue of each claim form.