DCB legal ltd solicitors court claim letter

Wolfie1111

I have not included Mazur act yet

Coupon-mad

Yes I was just going to say that you must add your Mazur paragraphs near to the start as a preliminary matter but otherwise it is good.

Except you haven't referred to any exhibits. Chan & Akande are exhibits. Your WS must not just talk about them but must refer to them by exhibit numbers and you then attach all your exhibit images.

1505grandad

An observation para 20 and others:-

"Accordingly, the additional £79.08 claimed above £100 is statutorily unrecoverable."

Interest is, I believe, recoverable but no doubt they are claiming perhaps more than they should?

Also should the following be your local court?:-

"IN THE CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE"

Wolfie1111

No , that's wrong court name, i will fix this.

Thank you everyone for your time and support

Wolfie1111

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LEICESTER
(Leicester County and Family Court)
Claim No: [CLAIM NUMBER]
Between:
[CLAIMANT NAME] – Claimant
-and-
[YOUR FULL NAME] – Defendant
WITNESS STATEMENT OF [YOUR FULL NAME]

1. Introduction
   1.1 I, [YOUR FULL NAME], of [YOUR ADDRESS], am the Defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of motor vehicle registration number [REGISTRATION NUMBER].
   1.2 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.
2. Driver Identity
   2.1 I was not the driver of the vehicle on [DATE OF ALLEGED EVENT], the date of the alleged parking incident.
   2.2 I have never admitted to being the driver, and the Claimant has produced no evidence identifying the driver.
   2.3 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.
   2.4 In the absence of proof of driver identity, liability is denied.
3. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)
   3.1 The Claimant purports to rely upon Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to pursue me as the registered keeper.
   3.2 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.
   3.3 In the absence of strict compliance, keeper liability does not arise.
   3.4 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.
4. Unreasonable Conduct
   4.1 The recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) (Exhibit 1) underlines the importance of ensuring litigation is carried out by qualified and authorised professionals.
   4.2 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.
   4.3 Even if acting 'under supervision', the binding decision in Speechlys holds that unauthorised staff must not conduct litigation.
   4.4 The witness statement of an Excel employee cannot paper over the fact that the claim form is defective for want of properly verified Particulars of Claim.
   4.5 The court is invited to strike out the claim and grant the Defendant's costs on the indemnity basis due to wholly unreasonable conduct.
   4.6 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.
   4.7 Should the hearing take place, I will contest the Right of Audience of any self-employed third-party advocate.
   4.8 In parking cases, such representatives hold varying levels of qualification and typically rely upon 'supervision' arguments (e.g. "DCB Legal supervised me and I'm a solicitor agent").
   4.9 The Speechlys judgment — relying as it did upon submissions by both the SRA and the Law Society — clarifies that those arguments will not suffice, even if the judge is familiar with the advocate and has seen/heard them in parking cases before.
5. Vague and Defective Particulars of Claim
   5.1 The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3–7.5.
   5.2 The Claimant has failed to plead any material facts, including:
     5.2.1 The precise contractual term allegedly breached;
     5.2.2 The manner in which the breach is said to have occurred;
     5.2.3 The conduct relied upon to give rise to the charge.
   5.3 The wording “Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions” is vague, generic, and legally insufficient.
   5.4 I rely upon the persuasive appeal authorities of:
     5.4.1 Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (HHJ Murch, 15 August 2023) (Exhibit 2);
     5.4.2 Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (HHJ Evans, 10 May 2024) (Exhibit 3).
   5.5 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.
6. No Evidence of a Lawful Contract
   6.1 I deny that any lawful or enforceable contract was formed with the driver.
   6.2 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.
   6.3 In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106 (Exhibit 4), the Court of Appeal confirmed that a driver cannot be bound by terms that were not adequately brought to their attention.
7. Consumer Rights Act 2015
   7.1 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.
   7.2 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.
8. Landowner Authority and Standing
   8.1 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.
   8.2 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.
9. Unlawful Added Costs – Abuse of Process
   9.1 The Claimant seeks to recover additional costs described as “legal representative’s costs” or similar.
   9.2 On the Small Claims Track, such costs are recoverable only to the extent expressly permitted by CPR 27.14.
   9.3 The Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (Exhibit 5) and the High Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB) (Exhibit 6) confirmed that administrative, collection, or legal costs beyond the parking charge are not recoverable.
10. Unlawful Inflation of the Claimed Sum
    10.1 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.
    10.2 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.
    10.3 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.
    10.4 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.
    10.5 In Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (G4QZ465V) (Exhibit 7), 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.
    10.6 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.
11. Conclusion
    11.1 I was not the driver, and the Claimant has failed to prove driver identity.
    11.2 The Claimant has failed to establish keeper liability under POFA 2012 and seeks sums that are not recoverable in law.
    11.3 The claim is vague, unsupported by evidence, inflated by unlawful additional sums, and discloses no proper cause of action. I respectfully invite the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety.
12. Statement of Truth
    12.1 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]
13. Exhibits
    13.1 Exhibit 1: Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)
    13.2 Exhibit 2: Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (HHJ Murch, 15 August 2023)
    13.3 Exhibit 3: Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (HHJ Evans, 10 May 2024)
    13.4 Exhibit 4: Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106
    13.5 Exhibit 5: ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67
    13.6 Exhibit 6: ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB)
    13.7 Exhibit 7: Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (G4QZ465V)

Wolfie1111

Is this at least acceptable?

Coupon-mad

Almost.

ONE BIG OMISSION:

I can't find anything where you tell the judge your 'story' that this was what the parking industry call a 'double dip' - two separate visits by car which were misread as one single continuous parking event by the ANPR system. Therefore Highview obtained your DVLA data without reasonable cause and they have processed and shared this data unlawfully as well as misleading the court in the Particulars of Claim where Sarah Ensall (not a solicitor) has knowingly or negligently misled the court, that the keeper can be pursued under the POFA 2012. Highview did not use compliant wording in that year and were never able to claim keeper liability in any parking case.

And why have you gone back to the wrong first draft wording about Mazur?

You've used this bit again!

4.4 The witness statement of an Excel employee cannot paper over the fact that the claim form is defective for want of properly verified Particulars of Claim.

No. Your parking firm is not Excel! Remove it. Your most recent wording on Mazur was the right wording & I think it even named Sarah Ensall didn't it, and she signed the claim form?

Then use the right wording about her. You had it earlier I am sure.

And remove these two exhibits to save pages because the judge can easily find these two well-known cases online and your WS bundle must not exceed 50 sides of A4:

13.5 Exhibit 5: ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67

13.6 Exhibit 6: ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB)

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.

Wolfie1111

I really appreciate your time and patience for correcting me

Hopefully this one is better

Wolfie1111

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LEICESTER
(Leicester County and Family Court)
Claim No: [CLAIM NUMBER]
Between:
[CLAIMANT NAME] – Claimant
-and-
[YOUR FULL NAME] – Defendant
WITNESS STATEMENT OF [YOUR FULL NAME]

1. Introduction
   1.1 I, [YOUR FULL NAME], of [YOUR ADDRESS], am the Defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of motor vehicle registration number [REGISTRATION NUMBER].
   1.2 The facts set out in this Witness Statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and are based upon my own personal knowledge, save where stated otherwise.
2. Background – ANPR “Double Dip” Error
   2.1 The allegation arises from what is commonly known within the parking industry as a “double dip” ANPR error.
   2.2 The vehicle made two separate visits to the site on the material date.
   2.3 The Claimant’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system has incorrectly paired the first entry with the final exit, creating the false impression that the vehicle remained parked continuously.
   2.4 ANPR systems are known to be prone to this error where intermediate exits or re-entries are not captured.
   2.5 The British Parking Association Code of Practice requires operators to carry out manual checks to prevent such errors.
   2.6 The Claimant has produced no evidence that any such manual checks were undertaken.
   2.7 As a result of this failure, the Claimant obtained my personal data from the DVLA without reasonable cause.
   2.8 The Claimant has therefore processed and shared my personal data unlawfully and has relied upon inaccurate data in bringing this claim.
3. Driver Identity
   3.1 I was not the driver of the vehicle on the alleged occasion.
   3.2 I have never admitted to being the driver and the Claimant has produced no evidence identifying the driver.
   3.3 There is no legal presumption that a registered keeper was the driver.
   3.4 In the absence of proof of driver identity, liability is denied.
4. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)
   4.1 The Claimant asserts that the registered keeper can be pursued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
   4.2 Highview Parking Ltd did not issue Notices to Keeper using POFA-compliant wording during the relevant period and has historically chosen not to rely upon keeper liability provisions.
   4.3 The Notice to Keeper issued in this case does not contain the mandatory wording required by paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of POFA.
   4.4 In the absence of strict compliance with POFA, keeper liability cannot arise.
   4.5 The Particulars of Claim misleadingly suggest that the registered keeper is liable when the statutory conditions required to establish such liability were not met.
5. Unreasonable Conduct and Defective Particulars of Claim
   5.1 The High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) (Exhibit 1) confirms that the conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity that must be carried out by authorised persons.
   5.2 The Claim Form in this case was signed by Sarah Ensall, who does not appear on the Solicitors Regulation Authority register as a solicitor.
   5.3 The Particulars of Claim therefore appear to have been verified by a person not authorised to conduct litigation or sign statements of truth in proceedings.
   5.4 The High Court in Mazur made clear that litigation documents signed or prepared by unauthorised persons cannot be legitimised by reliance upon supervision.
   5.5 The Claimant’s reliance upon such defective pleadings represents unreasonable conduct and calls into question the validity of the claim.
   5.6 The Court is invited to take this conduct into account when considering costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g).
6. Vague and Defective Particulars of Claim
   6.1 The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 paragraphs 7.3 to 7.5.
   6.2 The Claimant has failed to plead any material facts, including:
   6.2.1 The precise contractual term allegedly breached
   6.2.2 The manner in which the breach occurred
   6.2.3 The conduct relied upon to give rise to the charge
   6.3 The wording:
   “Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions”
   is vague, generic and legally insufficient.
   6.4 I rely upon the persuasive appeal authorities of:
   • Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Exhibit 2)
   • Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Exhibit 3)
   6.5 In both cases, similarly vague parking claims were held to be defective and liable to strike out under CPR 3.4.
7. No Evidence of a Lawful Contract
   7.1 I deny that any lawful or enforceable contract was formed with the driver.
   7.2 The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that signage at the site was sufficiently prominent or capable of forming contractual terms.
   7.3 In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106 (Exhibit 4), the Court of Appeal confirmed that a driver cannot be bound by terms that were not adequately brought to their attention.
8. Consumer Rights Act 2015
   8.1 Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 places a duty upon the Court to assess fairness and transparency of consumer terms.
   8.2 Given the lack of clarity and prominence of signage, 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.
9. Landowner Authority and Standing
   9.1 DVLA keeper data is supplied only where a parking operator holds written landowner authority.
   9.2 The Claimant is put to strict proof of its standing to bring this claim.
   9.3 The Claimant is required to produce a contemporaneous unredacted contract with the landowner showing authority to issue parking charges and litigate in its own name.
10. Unlawful Inflation of the Claimed Sum
    10.1 The Claim Form pleads £179.08 plus court and legal costs.
    10.2 The signage at the site specifies a maximum parking charge of £100.
    10.3 Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of POFA limits keeper liability to the amount of the unpaid parking charge only.
    10.4 CPR 27.14 does not permit recovery of invented additional sums described as “principal balance” or similar.
    10.5 In Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (Exhibit 5), the court confirmed that the addition of arbitrary sums to a parking charge constitutes an abuse of process.
    10.6 The additional £79.08 is unrecoverable and represents double recovery.
11. Conclusion
    11.1 The vehicle made two separate visits and the Claimant’s ANPR evidence is unreliable.
    11.2 I was not the driver and the Claimant has failed to prove driver identity.
    11.3 The Claimant has failed to establish keeper liability under POFA.
    11.4 The claim relies upon defective Particulars of Claim and unlawfully inflated sums.
    11.5 I respectfully invite the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety.
12. Statement of Truth
    12.1 I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
    12.2 I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes a false statement verified by a statement of truth without honest belief in its truth.
    Signed: _______________________
    Name: [YOUR FULL NAME]
    Date: [DATE]
13. Exhibits
    Exhibit 1 – Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
    Exhibit 2 – Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan
    Exhibit 3 – CPMS v Akande
    Exhibit 4 – Vine v Waltham Forest
    Exhibit 5 – Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson

Coupon-mad

You've nailed it!