DCB Legal court claim 2025 For old parking charge

Carla23

good morning. 

I was wondering if I can get advice for a court claim from November 2011 where I parked in a retail park in Manchester, and allegedly overstayed the 90 minutes of free parking. Since it’s so long ago I have no recollection of who was driving at the time, and I no longer have possession of the car (sold in 2022). 

I have completed the AOS on 23/09/2025. 
I have attached the claim letter

Carla23

Here is the front page of the court claim

Gr1pr

Its in 2021, not 2011 

Bay Sentry via DCB Legal claim, 9th September 2025

Login to MCOL via your government gateway account and complete the AOS online stage if not done already,  if you can,   so ASAP,  unless it was definitely completed 2 weeks ago 

That will make your defence based on the template defence by coupon mad in announcements deadline next Monday 13th October at 4pm

Use the template defence in announcements and adapt accordingly 

Study the 8 steps too, plus read a few similar recent cases on here,  see what they said 

Coupon-mad

Just copy from the other recent Bay Sentry thread which has the new wording about Mazur that's not even in the template yet.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 09/09/25 and having completed the AoS after 14/09/25 and before 28/09/25

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 13/10/25

Carla23

Coupon-mad said:

Just copy from the other recent Bay Sentry thread which has the new wording about Mazur that's not even in the template yet.

Thanks for that. Do you by any chance know the link to this thread.. I cannot seem to find it using the search bar.

Coupon-mad

No sorry. It would be by searching, same as you. But it is easily findable. Look again. You are changing your search results to NEWEST?

Carla23

Coupon-mad said:

No sorry. It would be by searching, same as you. But it is easily findable. Look again. You are changing your search results to NEWEST?

thanks, I’ve been able to find bits and piece them together. I would really appreciate your advice as I’m not sure if point 3 is too long:


3 a) The Particulars of Claim allege that the Defendant breached terms of parking on 25/11/2021. The Defendant has no recollection of the circumstances of that day, given that the alleged event was nearly four years ago and the Defendant cannot now recall who was driving the vehicle. The Defendant denies liability in any capacity.

The Defendant does not recall receiving letters from the Claimant in 2021, and no recent correspondence was received until a sudden County Court Claim in September 2025. This significant delay is prejudicial, making it unreasonable to expect the Defendant to recall specific details or to gather contemporaneous evidence.

Accordingly, the Claimant is put to strict proof of:

• the alleged breach;
• the contractual terms purportedly relied upon;
• contemporaneous evidence of signage and its prominence;
• the identity of the driver; and
• full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) if the Claimant seeks to transfer liability to the keeper.

3.(b) In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re: claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that were a remedy, then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  His Honour Judge Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting ‘on behalf of’ the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA, but did not. Mr Smith’s appeal was allowed, and Excel’s claim was dismissed.

3.(c) In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan, sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re: claim H0KF6C9C), held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  His Honour Judge Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. “My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion...” Mr Edward’s appeal succeeded, and the claim was dismissed.

Also, here are points 10 & 11

10. 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. Even if acting 'under supervision', the binding decision in Speechlys holds that unauthorised staff must not conduct litigation. 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.

11. The claim represents systemic abuse of 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))'.

Le_Kirk

I doubt that will fit into the MCOL box without trimming.  You can save most of your paragraph #3 for the witness statement if it doesn't fit; if it does, go for it!

Coupon-mad

This significant delay is prejudicial, making it unreasonable to expect the Defendant to recall specific details or to gather contemporaneous evidence.

Isn't that already in para 1 of the Template?

Carla23

Thanks for your advice