TCB DCB Legal CNBC, Advice needed please!

Coupon-mad

Of course you tear apart their images in your WS and in person at the hearing.

"Here is my updated WS"

No. You haven't added anything that I said to include except a passing mention of "paragraph 3.4 of the first instance judgment of HHJ Moloney in Beavis concerning the meaning of the operator's "costs of the operation".

But you haven't exhibited that transcript as far as I can tell. Judges don't have access to the first instance judgment in Beavis, so you need to show it like JackR1 did.

Where are all the other exhibits I mentioned?

Nodiscounts100

@coupon-mad I have now added everything you have asked for, bad signage, links to first instance judgement of Beavis, POC not mentioning terms breached. Please let me know if there is anything I should add

1. I, XXXXXXX of XXXXXXX, am the Defendant in this claim. The facts stated in this Witness Statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
2. In this statement I refer to exhibits attached in support of my evidence and will identify them where appropriate.
3. I am a litigant in person with no formal legal training. I have done my best to present my case clearly and truthfully and respectfully ask the Court to take this into account.
4. On 1 May 2025, I drove to XXXXXXX with my wife. Our intention was to visit a nearby restaurant for an evening meal.
5. Upon arrival, I attempted to pay for parking using the payment methods provided by the Claimant. I understood that payment was required and had every intention of purchasing a parking session. Despite several attempts, I was unable to complete payment as the payment process repeatedly failed and no parking session could be successfully created.
6. I remained on site whilst attempting to resolve the issue and make payment. At no stage was my intention to avoid payment or obtain free parking. After multiple unsuccessful attempts, I decided that I could not leave my vehicle in the car park without a valid parking session. I therefore chose not to park there, exited the site and parked elsewhere before continuing with my plans for the evening.
7. Attached as Exhibit EH-01 is evidence of a transaction at XXXXXXX at approximately 20:02 on 1 May 2025. This supports my evidence that my purpose for attending the area was to visit the restaurant with my wife and that I continued with those plans after leaving the Claimant's car park.
8. Attached as Exhibit EH-02 is a screenshot from my Google Timeline showing my presence at XXXXXXX during the relevant period.
9. Whilst the Claimant's ANPR evidence records my vehicle as remaining within the car park boundary for approximately 22 minutes, this does not establish that I parked and left the vehicle. It merely records entry and exit times. During that period I was attempting to make payment and decide how to proceed after the payment system failed.
10. The Claimant's own evidence confirms that no valid payment session was created. That fact is entirely consistent with my account that repeated attempts to pay were unsuccessful. The Claimant states that users were expected to pay using the Parkonomy application or mobile payment system. It is my evidence that those payment methods failed during my attempts to use them.
11. The Claimant also relies upon a five-minute consideration period. I respectfully submit that the circumstances of this case are materially different from a motorist who simply enters a site and remains without attempting payment. Attached as Exhibit EH-03 is a photograph of the entrance signage relied upon by the Claimant. It is my evidence that the sign is not realistically capable of being fully read by a driver whilst entering the site. The entrance accommodates only a single vehicle at a time and a driver cannot safely stop at the entrance for several minutes to read detailed contractual terms without obstructing vehicles entering or exiting the car park.
12. Before any decision to park can properly be made, a driver must first enter the site, locate and read the relevant terms and conditions, understand the payment requirements, and attempt to make payment using the prescribed method. In my case, I spent time attempting to comply with those requirements and make payment. I also tried multiple payment cards and attempted to complete payment using my wife's mobile phone. Despite these further attempts, I remained unable to create a valid parking session.
13. It is difficult to reconcile the Claimant's reliance on a five-minute consideration period with the practical reality of the site. If every motorist were expected to stop at the entrance and fully read the contractual terms before entering, this would be likely to cause delays to vehicles entering and exiting the car park. In practice, motorists can only properly consider the terms after entering the site and locating a parking space.
14. I respectfully submit that my presence on the site for approximately 22 minutes is entirely consistent with a motorist attempting to read and understand the terms, make payment using the Claimant's prescribed system, and decide how to proceed when those payment attempts proved unsuccessful.
15. The Claimant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, the facts of that case are materially different from the present matter. In Beavis, the motorist remained parked beyond the permitted free parking period and there was no dispute that the parking terms were understood and accepted. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the parking charge itself was enforceable.
16. In the present case, I entered the site intending to pay for parking and made repeated attempts to do so using the payment method provided by the Claimant. Despite those attempts, I was unable to complete payment due to difficulties encountered with the application. Upon being unable to complete payment, I left the site rather than remain parked without payment.
17. Accordingly, this case does not concern a motorist who knowingly remained parked in breach of clearly understood parking terms. Instead, it concerns a motorist who made genuine attempts to pay but was unable to do so and subsequently left the site. I respectfully submit that the facts are therefore distinguishable from Beavis.
18. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, the Claimant must show two things: (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 UKSC67.
19. My conduct throughout was consistent with a person attempting to comply with the parking terms rather than evade them. Had payment been successful, I would have paid. When payment could not be completed, I left.
20. The Claimant's Exhibit 4 includes details of a previous parking session associated with my vehicle at a different location. I respectfully submit that this evidence supports, rather than undermines, my account. It demonstrates that I was familiar with the Claimant's parking payment system and had previously used it to purchase parking sessions.
21. This is entirely consistent with my evidence that I understood payment was required on the material date and that I made genuine attempts to create a valid parking session. It is not the conduct of a motorist seeking to avoid payment.
22. The same exhibit also contains details of vehicle registrations for which parking sessions were successfully created. My vehicle registration does not appear within that list for the material date. I respectfully submit that the absence of any successfully created parking session is entirely consistent with my evidence that my attempts to make payment were unsuccessful and that no parking session could be completed despite repeated efforts.
23. The Claimant's witness statement repeatedly suggests that I remained on the land in breach of contract. I respectfully disagree. My evidence is that I was attempting to comply with the parking terms and, when that proved impossible, I decided not to park there and exited the site.
24. I respectfully submit that the Claimant has failed to properly consider the circumstances leading to my presence on the site and has instead relied solely upon ANPR timestamps without taking account of the failed payment attempts and my decision to leave and park elsewhere. I believe it would be unjust to penalise a motorist who made genuine attempts to pay, was unable to do so because of issues with the payment process, and ultimately chose not to park in the Claimant's car park.
25. The Claimant states that the Defence is substantially based upon a widely available template parking defence. I respectfully submit that this assertion is irrelevant to the issues before the Court. I am a litigant in person with no legal training or experience of court proceedings and have relied upon publicly available resources to better understand the legal process and assist me in presenting my case. There is nothing improper about a litigant in person seeking guidance in a complex area of law.
26. The Court is concerned with the facts and evidence of this particular case, not the source from which legal arguments may have been derived. Whilst some legal arguments may be commonly raised in private parking claims, the evidence relied upon in this case is entirely specific to the circumstances of this claim. My account of the events, my attempts to make payment, my subsequent visit to XXXXXXX restaurant, and the documentary evidence exhibited in support of those facts are unique to this matter and should be considered on their merits.
27. I respectfully submit that the Claimant's reference to a "template defence" adds nothing of evidential value and does not assist the Court in determining the facts of the case.
28. Without prejudice to my primary position that no parking contract was formed and that I did not remain parked on the site, I respectfully submit that the amount claimed is excessive and unrecoverable.
29. The Claimant continues to pursue a sum substantially exceeding the original parking charge. I respectfully draw the Court's attention to paragraphs 98, 100, 193 and 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, in which the Supreme Court recognised that the parking charge itself was intended to cover the costs of operating the parking scheme. I also refer the Court to paragraph 3.4 of the first instance judgment of HHJ Moloney in Beavis concerning the meaning of the operator's "costs of the operation".
30. I further draw the Court's attention to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB), where HHJ Hegarty considered the addition of further administrative charges to a parking charge and observed that such additions appeared penal in nature. In addition, I respectfully submit that any additional sums claimed over and above the original parking charge represent a form of double recovery, particularly where legal and court costs are already separately claimed. I invite the Court to consider the findings of HHJ Jackson in Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson, where the addition of further sums to a parking charge was rejected.
31. The Claimant has suggested that the lack of detail within the Particulars of Claim was a consequence of character limitations imposed by the claim issuing process. However, it is my understanding that the available character limit was approximately 1080 characters, whereas the Particulars of Claim served in this matter contained approximately 790 characters. If correct, this would indicate that additional space remained available and that further particulars could have been provided. In particular, the Claimant could have identified the specific contractual term alleged to have been breached and the conduct relied upon. I respectfully submit that the absence of such information cannot therefore be attributed solely to any limitation on the number of characters available.
32. The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.
33. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan XXX (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 
34. Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit EH-04)
35. Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (See Exhibit EH-05)
36. Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit EH-06)
37. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. This lack of specificity places me, the Defendant, at a distinct disadvantage, as I find myself in the position of having to mount a defence without a clear understanding of the precise nature of the alleged violation.
38. For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that the Court dismiss the claim.

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.

Coupon-mad

Nearly there.

What are all your exhibits now?

Remove 31-37 which is not relevant. Not sure why you copied that because your POC do plead the alleged breach.

And you can't say this without exhibiting it:

"I invite the Court to consider the findings of HHJ Jackson in Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson, where the addition of further sums to a parking charge was rejected."

And you seem to have plonked that bit randomly at the end of the paragraph about Somerfield and erased the REALLY IMPORTANT standard sentence pointing out that Somerfield was referenced by HHJ Moloney in Beavis.

Nodiscounts100

Thanks for the feedback.

I added what I you asked me to with exhibits at the end. I hope this is ok.

1. I, XXXXXXX of XXXXXXX, am the Defendant in this claim. The facts stated in this Witness Statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
2. In this statement I refer to exhibits attached in support of my evidence and will identify them where appropriate.
3. I am a litigant in person with no formal legal training. I have done my best to present my case clearly and truthfully and respectfully ask the Court to take this into account.
4. On 1 May 2025, I drove to XXXXXXX with my wife. Our intention was to visit a nearby restaurant for an evening meal.
5. Upon arrival, I attempted to pay for parking using the payment methods provided by the Claimant. I understood that payment was required and had every intention of purchasing a parking session. Despite several attempts, I was unable to complete payment as the payment process repeatedly failed and no parking session could be successfully created.
6. I remained on site whilst attempting to resolve the issue and make payment. At no stage was my intention to avoid payment or obtain free parking. After multiple unsuccessful attempts, I decided that I could not leave my vehicle in the car park without a valid parking session. I therefore chose not to park there, exited the site and parked elsewhere before continuing with my plans for the evening.
7. Attached as Exhibit EH-01 is evidence of a transaction at XXXXXXX at approximately 20:02 on 1 May 2025. This supports my evidence that my purpose for attending the area was to visit the restaurant with my wife and that I continued with those plans after leaving the Claimant's car park.
8. Attached as Exhibit EH-02 is a screenshot from my Google Timeline showing my presence at XXXXXXX during the relevant period.
9. Whilst the Claimant's ANPR evidence records my vehicle as remaining within the car park boundary for approximately 22 minutes, this does not establish that I parked and left the vehicle. It merely records entry and exit times. During that period I was attempting to make payment and decide how to proceed after the payment system failed.
10. The Claimant's own evidence confirms that no valid payment session was created. That fact is entirely consistent with my account that repeated attempts to pay were unsuccessful. The Claimant states that users were expected to pay using the Parkonomy application or mobile payment system. It is my evidence that those payment methods failed during my attempts to use them.
11. The Claimant also relies upon a five-minute consideration period. I respectfully submit that the circumstances of this case are materially different from a motorist who simply enters a site and remains without attempting payment. Attached as Exhibit EH-03 is a photograph of the entrance signage relied upon by the Claimant. It is my evidence that the sign is not realistically capable of being fully read by a driver whilst entering the site. The entrance accommodates only a single vehicle at a time and a driver cannot safely stop at the entrance for several minutes to read detailed contractual terms without obstructing vehicles entering or exiting the car park.
12. Before any decision to park can properly be made, a driver must first enter the site, locate and read the relevant terms and conditions, understand the payment requirements, and attempt to make payment using the prescribed method. In my case, I spent time attempting to comply with those requirements and make payment. I also tried multiple payment cards and attempted to complete payment using my wife's mobile phone. Despite these further attempts, I remained unable to create a valid parking session.
13. It is difficult to reconcile the Claimant's reliance on a five-minute consideration period with the practical reality of the site. If every motorist were expected to stop at the entrance and fully read the contractual terms before entering, this would be likely to cause delays to vehicles entering and exiting the car park. In practice, motorists can only properly consider the terms after entering the site and locating a parking space.
14. I respectfully submit that my presence on the site for approximately 22 minutes is entirely consistent with a motorist attempting to read and understand the terms, make payment using the Claimant's prescribed system, and decide how to proceed when those payment attempts proved unsuccessful.
15. The Claimant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, the facts of that case are materially different from the present matter. In Beavis, the motorist remained parked beyond the permitted free parking period and there was no dispute that the parking terms were understood and accepted. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the parking charge itself was enforceable.
16. In the present case, I entered the site intending to pay for parking and made repeated attempts to do so using the payment method provided by the Claimant. Despite those attempts, I was unable to complete payment due to difficulties encountered with the application. Upon being unable to complete payment, I left the site rather than remain parked without payment.
17. Accordingly, this case does not concern a motorist who knowingly remained parked in breach of clearly understood parking terms. Instead, it concerns a motorist who made genuine attempts to pay but was unable to do so and subsequently left the site. I respectfully submit that the facts are therefore distinguishable from Beavis.
18. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, the Claimant must show two things: (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 UKSC67.
19. My conduct throughout was consistent with a person attempting to comply with the parking terms rather than evade them. Had payment been successful, I would have paid. When payment could not be completed, I left.
20. The Claimant's Exhibit 4 includes details of a previous parking session associated with my vehicle at a different location. I respectfully submit that this evidence supports, rather than undermines, my account. It demonstrates that I was familiar with the Claimant's parking payment system and had previously used it to purchase parking sessions.
21. This is entirely consistent with my evidence that I understood payment was required on the material date and that I made genuine attempts to create a valid parking session. It is not the conduct of a motorist seeking to avoid payment.
22. The same exhibit also contains details of vehicle registrations for which parking sessions were successfully created. My vehicle registration does not appear within that list for the material date. I respectfully submit that the absence of any successfully created parking session is entirely consistent with my evidence that my attempts to make payment were unsuccessful and that no parking session could be completed despite repeated efforts.
23. The Claimant's witness statement repeatedly suggests that I remained on the land in breach of contract. I respectfully disagree. My evidence is that I was attempting to comply with the parking terms and, when that proved impossible, I decided not to park there and exited the site.
24. I respectfully submit that the Claimant has failed to properly consider the circumstances leading to my presence on the site and has instead relied solely upon ANPR timestamps without taking account of the failed payment attempts and my decision to leave and park elsewhere. I believe it would be unjust to penalise a motorist who made genuine attempts to pay, was unable to do so because of issues with the payment process, and ultimately chose not to park in the Claimant's car park.
25. The Claimant states that the Defence is substantially based upon a widely available template parking defence. I respectfully submit that this assertion is irrelevant to the issues before the Court. I am a litigant in person with no legal training or experience of court proceedings and have relied upon publicly available resources to better understand the legal process and assist me in presenting my case. There is nothing improper about a litigant in person seeking guidance in a complex area of law.
26. The Court is concerned with the facts and evidence of this particular case, not the source from which legal arguments may have been derived. Whilst some legal arguments may be commonly raised in private parking claims, the evidence relied upon in this case is entirely specific to the circumstances of this claim. My account of the events, my attempts to make payment, my subsequent visit to XXXXXXX restaurant, and the documentary evidence exhibited in support of those facts are unique to this matter and should be considered on their merits.
27. I respectfully submit that the Claimant's reference to a "template defence" adds nothing of evidential value and does not assist the Court in determining the facts of the case.
28. Without prejudice to my primary position that no parking contract was formed and that I did not remain parked on the site, I respectfully submit that the amount claimed is excessive and unrecoverable.
29. The Claimant continues to pursue a sum substantially exceeding the original parking charge. I respectfully draw the Court's attention to paragraphs 98, 100, 193 and 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, in which the Supreme Court recognised that the parking charge itself was intended to cover the costs of operating the parking scheme. I also refer the Court to paragraph 3.4 of the first instance judgment of HHJ Moloney in Beavis concerning the meaning of the operator's "costs of the operation".
30. I further draw the Court's attention to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB), a binding High Court authority which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law specifically addressing the issue of additional administrative charges. HHJ Hegarty held at paragraphs 419-428 that 'admin costs' which increased a parking charge from £75 (itself already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter chain and 'would appear to be penal'. That judgment was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal. I further note that HHJ Moloney referred to Somerfield in the first instance judgment in Beavis.
31. I respectfully submit that any additional sums claimed over and above the original parking charge in the present case similarly represent a form of double recovery, particularly where legal and court costs are already separately claimed. I also invite the Court to consider the findings of HHJ Jackson in Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson, where the addition of further sums to a parking charge was rejected.
32. For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that the Court dismiss the claim.

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.

EX EH01

EX EH-02

EX EH-03

Coupon-mad

Yes that's ready to go. The hearing will take place so get ready for that by reading threads about hearings.

Nodiscounts100

Thank you very much for your help.

Shall I email this to the court and cc DCB? I called the court and they confirmed my hearing Friday 19th June and said that I should send an email to request a new letter. Will the court accept my defence if it was not sent to DCB prior to hearing?

I will print this statement along with all supporting evidence to take to court

Coupon-mad

DCB Legal had your defence last year! This is your WS and evidence not your defence.

"Shall I email this to the court and cc DCB?"

Yes but obviously DCB Legal not DCB Ltd!

Nodiscounts100

So court date is tomorrow and I am quite nervous as I have never been inside a court. Hearing is in Manchester and from what I read judges are nice here which is great. I have been reading posts about courts etc but I am worried about a few things.

• Why did I ignore their letters? They sent me many letters which I ignored (not good I know)
• Why did I not submit WS on time? Ofcoursse I did not get the letter (I live in a flat so things can go missing sometimes) but will they believe me? DCB will have got my defence late so maybe they are not prepared to defend against me.
• If for any reason the judge rules in their favour, does this mean I have a CCJ on my record? the thought of this is terrifying.

Gr1pr

You ignored the letters because you believed them to be spam or similar

You are an unrepresented Litigant in Person, not familiar with the court system or language or terminology, but did your best to follow the process, not ignoring it

Your post is intermittent, as reported in the news

DCB LEGAL are not the claimant and definitely wont appear in court, they never do, but their client may send an advocate.

No it doesn't, you normally get a months grace period in order to pay DCB Legal in full, whatever the judge orders, so write it down in court, if you lose

Pay promptly means no CCJ

Coupon-mad

"If for any reason the judge rules in their favour, does this mean I have a CCJ on my record?"

Obviously not. Think about it:

Do you think we and especially MSE Towers (their Guide was personally checked by Martin Lewis himself last year) would tell people not to pay unfair PCNs and to simply defend any court claims, if a CCJ was risked the very second a person (very rarely) loses at a hearing?

Nope. If that was true there'd be no balance, no fair hearing and the burden on defendants would be massive!

If you lost you'd just pay in full immediately within the month allowed. And it would be less than the Claim.

Court is a bit like a job interview level of formality. Get there early to get thru security.