DCB legal, claim form, NS1SDT

LewisLitt

Hi, ive attached it below.: 

LewisLitt

hxxp://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/i4fvkejuwwlu3jczgryg8/claim-form.jpg?rlkey=kb078g3l3o6jm1f8fgzc34265&st=fkeiifv1&dl=0

I’m not the most tech savvy person, but I think I have correctly attached the document you have mentioned. It is also one PCN. 

Le_Kirk

That is an old, outdated statement of truth.

LewisLitt

Thanks for the feedback, here’s take 2. I have used the template from the newbies thread. Let me know your thought. Thanks 

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. The defendant has no recollection of ever receiving a compliant parking charge notice (PCN).  The location is a residential apartment block. The Defendant was visiting a resident and briefly stopped to deliver medical supplies.. This is not “parking” within the ordinary meaning. In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) B9GF0A9E, HHJ Harris QC confirmed that brief stopping to unload at residential premises is not parking. That case also confirmed that residential parking cases are distinguishable from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

 4.The Defendant also relies on Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (2025), where the High Court confirmed that only authorised persons may conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that this claim was signed and issued by an authorised individual. If not, the claim is improperly constituted.

  5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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'.

9. 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'.

10. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

 

patient_dream

LewisLitt said:

Hi, ive attached it below.: 

Another FAKE claim from DCBL ..... DAMAGES ???  WHAT DAMAGES ??

THEY ARE MISLEADING YOU AND THE COURTS with this utter rubbish

The problem is, that DCBL has not got the guts to explain the fake add-on, 

No wonder these court timewasters discontinue their rubbish before they get a court spanking

Play the game with these chicken out merchants .... if it goes that far ,,, and claim your costs .... the corts are well aware such rubbish

Coupon-mad

The Defendant was visiting a resident and briefly stopped to deliver medical supplies.

That's fine as long as you are happy to admit to driving. Did you appeal and admit it earlier?

LewisLitt

I've made no appeals or admissions. This is the first document other than the AOS, that I have received and will respond to. If I didn't admit to driving, what would I put in paragraph 3, after the first sentence. 

Coupon-mad

Well I very much doubt GBP complied with the POFA as their NTKs are sent by ZZPS who are shockingly bad.

So you could concentrate on saying in para 3 that the Defendant does not accept that the Claimant complied with the keeper liability requirements of the POFA 2012.

You could even copy the wording from any Smart Parking defence about the signatory of the POC misleading the court.  

LewisLitt

Thank you @Coupon-mad. I will update accordingly.