DCB legal ltd solicitors court claim letter

Wolfie1111

5. Unreasonable Conduct

5.1 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 (Sarah Ensall) 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 were paralegals. Even if acting 'under supervision', the binding decision in Speechlys holds that unauthorised staff must not conduct litigation. The witness statement of an Excel employee cannot paper over the fact that the claim form is defective for want of properly verified PoC.

5.2 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. Should the hearing actually take place, I will contest the Right of Audience of any self-employed third party advocate. In parking cases, these reps hold varying levels of qualification and typically rely upon 'supervision' arguments (e.g. "DCB Legal supervise me and I'm a solicitor agent"). The Speechlys judgment - relying as it did upon submissions by both the SRA and the Law Society - helpfully clarifies that those arguments won't wash, not even if the judge is familiar with the advocate and has seen/heard them in parking cases before.

Wolfie1111

Is this any better? I does mention dcb legal

Coupon-mad

yes but don't copy the blindingly obvious wrong bit!

Wolfie1111

This is completely new domain me, as you already noticed.English is not my first language aswell

I would be grateful if you could highlight what needs removing.

Wolfie1111

Unreasonable Conduct

5.1 This claim arises from an allegation of overstaying in a private car park and appears to form part of a bulk-issued parking litigation model. The High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) emphasises the requirement that litigation must be conducted by appropriately authorised persons. The Defendant has been unable to locate the signatory to the Particulars of Claim, Sarah Ensall, on the Solicitors Regulation Authority register as a solicitor authorised to conduct litigation on behalf of DCB Legal Ltd. The Defendant understands that bulk parking claims are often prepared by paralegal or administrative staff. Whilst such staff may assist under supervision, the Mazur judgment highlights the importance of ensuring that the conduct of litigation and the verification of statements of truth are undertaken by properly authorised individuals.

5.2 The Defendant submits that, if the Particulars of Claim in this overstaying parking claim were not properly verified by an authorised person, this calls into question the validity of the statement of truth and the reliability of the claim as pleaded. The court is therefore invited to consider striking out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4.

5.3 The Defendant further submits that the Claimant’s conduct in pursuing a claim arising from an alleged parking overstay, which includes additional and unrecoverable sums beyond the permitted parking charge, appears to form part of a routine bulk litigation process lacking proper scrutiny of individual cases. The Defendant contends that such conduct amounts to unreasonable behaviour. Whilst costs are not ordinarily awarded in the small claims track, CPR 27.14(2)(g) permits the court to award costs where a party has behaved unreasonably.

5.4 In the event that this overstaying parking claim is discontinued late or proceeds to hearing, the Defendant reserves the right to challenge the right of audience of any representative who is not properly authorised to conduct litigation or appear before the court, in light of the principles discussed in Mazur and Stuart.

Wolfie1111

This mention additional para for overstayed parking, can i use it?

1505grandad

This mention additional para for overstayed parking, can i use it?

You are supposed to be responding to the PoC - do they (PoC) say what the breach is?

Wolfie1111

On claim form they dont mention but i found out when i had a mediation call

Coupon-mad

That's better.

You are doing brilliantly. Fantastic effort and you have now removed the bit about a completely different parking firm (Excel).

Just to remind us all, this is a Highview DCB Legal claim for a double dip scenario, with no breach pleaded in the POC. Chan & Akande style defence was done in October.

So, does your WS have the Chan and Akande cases as exhibits first?

Show us the whole WS from paragraph 1.

Wolfie1111

IN THE CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE

Claim No: [CLAIM NUMBER]

Witness Statement of [YOUR FULL NAME]

Introduction

1. I, [YOUR FULL NAME], of [YOUR ADDRESS], am the Defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of motor vehicle registration number [REGISTRATION NUMBER]. The facts set out in this Witness Statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and are based on my own personal knowledge, save where stated otherwise.

Driver Identity

2. I was not the driver of the vehicle on [DATE OF ALLEGED EVENT], the date of the alleged parking incident. I have never admitted to being the driver, and the Claimant has produced no evidence identifying the driver.

3. The Claimant has failed to establish the identity of the driver. There is no legal presumption in English law that a registered keeper was the driver. In the absence of proof of driver identity, liability is denied.

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)

4. The Claimant purports to rely upon Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to pursue me as the registered keeper.

5. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of POFA, including but not limited to paragraphs 4 and 9 of Schedule 4. In the absence of strict compliance, keeper liability does not arise.

6. Further and in any event, even if (which is denied) POFA compliance were established, paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 4 expressly limits recovery from a keeper to the amount of the unpaid parking charge stated on the Notice to Driver or Notice to Keeper.

Vague and Defective Particulars of Claim

7. The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3–7.5. The Claimant has failed to plead any material facts, including:

a. the precise contractual term allegedly breached;

b. the manner in which the breach is said to have occurred;

c. the conduct relied upon to give rise to the charge.

8. The wording “Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions” is vague, generic, and legally insufficient.

9. I rely upon the persuasive appeal authorities of Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (HHJ Murch, 15 August 2023) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (HHJ Evans, 10 May 2024). In both cases, the courts held that parking claims pleaded in generic terms fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and are liable to be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4. The present claim suffers from the same defects.

No Evidence of a Lawful Contract

10. I deny that any lawful or enforceable contract was formed with the driver. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the signage at the location was sufficiently prominent, legible from a moving vehicle, or capable of forming contractual terms.

11. In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a driver cannot be bound by terms that were not adequately brought to their attention.

Consumer Rights Act 2015

12. Pursuant to section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Court has a mandatory duty to assess the fairness and transparency of consumer terms and notices.

13. Given the lack of clarity, prominence, and evidence of fair and open dealing, any term relied upon by the Claimant is unfair within the meaning of sections 62 and Schedule 2 of the Act and is therefore unenforceable.

Landowner Authority and Standing

14. DVLA keeper data is supplied only on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its standing to bring this claim.

15. The Claimant is required to produce a contemporaneous, unredacted contract with the landowner showing authority to issue parking charges, to litigate in its own name, together with the site boundary and dates of authority.

Unlawful Added Costs – Abuse of Process

16. The Claimant seeks to recover additional costs described as “legal representative’s costs” or similar. On the Small Claims Track, such costs are recoverable only to the extent expressly permitted by CPR 27.14.

17. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and the High Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB) confirmed that administrative, collection, or legal costs beyond the parking charge are not recoverable.

Unlawful Inflation of the Claimed Sum

18. The Claim Form pleads an “amount claimed” of £179.08, together with a £35 court fee and £50 legal representative’s costs, giving a total of £264.08.

19. The signage at St Margaret’s Retail Park, B&Q, Leicester, specifies a maximum parking charge of £100. No signage offers or permits any higher charge.

20. Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 limits keeper liability to the amount of the unpaid parking charge only. Accordingly, the additional £79.08 claimed above £100 is statutorily unrecoverable.

21. CPR 27.14 does not permit the recovery of invented sums described as “principal balance” or similar. The additional £79.08 is neither a court fee nor a recoverable fixed cost.

22. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (G4QZ465V), the court held that the addition of an arbitrary sum to a £100 parking charge constituted an abuse of process. The present claim is factually indistinguishable.

23. The Claimant’s attempt to recover £179.08 as a purported parking charge is unlawful, non-compliant with statute, and constitutes an abuse of the court’s process. The inflated element must be struck out.

Conclusion

24. I was not the driver, and the Claimant has failed to prove driver identity.

25. The Claimant has failed to establish keeper liability under POFA 2012 and seeks sums that are not recoverable in law.

26. The claim is vague, unsupported by evidence, inflated by unlawful additional sums, and discloses no proper cause of action.

27. I respectfully invite the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed: ___________________________

Name: [YOUR FULL NAME]

Date: [DATE]