DCB Claim Issued - advice needed

Nissan200

Hi MSE. 

I’ve received a County Court Claim Form, filed by DCB Legal via MCOL. I’ve been following the newbies thread thus far (although only since my initial appeal was rejected- I genuinely thought this was a mistake at first so I stupidly didn’t Google it right away) but now it’s escalated I’m hoping you guys may be able to help with the defence. 

I’m using the template defence, but I’m hoping for some advice on Section 3. 

I’ve had a good search around on the forum and the internet generally about my dispute, but as it’s a bit nuanced I can’t find much in the way of relevant advice. My car was parked in the Dartington Hall Estate earlier this year; the estate is sizeable and has a number of parking areas within the grounds, as well as shops and restaurants etc. All the parking areas have the same signage, are apparently owned by the same estate, are managed by the same company (TPS) and are all within the boundary of the same estate - they provide a helpful map of the estate with the parking areas listed at the estate entrance, here’s a photo (the estate is the area shaded in green):

I paid for parking upon arrival and visited some of the stores with my other half, one of the staff in the retail store recommended visiting a restaurant in a different part of the estate and said we should “just drive around there” as it was raining. We did just that, and moved the car to a closer parking area within the estate. We stayed for less than an hour and spent around £65 on lunch at the restaurant. I’ve since received a parking charge from TPS for non-payment, I appealed and provided a copy of the ticket demonstrating payment, which was rejected based on the tickets not being transferable between the parking areas within the estate. 

The terms and conditions in both parking areas are the same (literally an identical sign) and make no mention of payments/tickets not being transferable. Here’s the T&C’s sign:

As far as I can tell, after reading everything I can find, the driver would have entered into a contract with the estate upon entering it, and therefore unless it’s explicitly excluded in a T&C the same ticket should be valid in all the areas within the estate? If it makes any difference the parking ticket says “Dartington Hall” on it, rather than the name of the specific parking area where it was issued and every piece of correspondence has the parking location listed as “Dartington Hall Trust” rather than naming a specific area. I looked through the Single Code of Practice, 3.1.3 points K & L seem to suggest the onus would be on TPS to point out any applicable bylaws or to draw attention to where T&C’s differ within the same site. 

Can you give me any advice on whether this is a strong argument and if so how I should articulate this in the defence? 

Sorry for such a long post, I’m very unnerved by the prospect of going to court but I’m determined not to fund these practises so I’m taking it all the way!

Gr1pr

So its TPS via DCB Legal 

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below and also post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

Post the AOS date if you completed it online on MCOL too

The argument seems sound to me, especially for your later WS

No idea why you think that it will go to an actual court hearing,  because they tend to discontinue before the hearing fee deadline date for payment,  no payment equals no hearing 

Nissan200

Thanks for the help

Issue date: 30/09/2025
AOS date: 09/10/2025
PoC:

I’m planning to complete and file the defence this weekend if possible. 

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 30/09/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 03/11/25

Nissan200

Here’s my defence, any feedback would be much appreciated!!

(These are the only two paragraphs I changed from the template, so I didn’t want to copy out the whole thing, but the other template paragraphs are there on MCOL). 

“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 driver and are the registered keeper.

3. With reference to the Particulars of Claim (“POC”): Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant in any sum. Paragraph 2 is denied. While the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the material date, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant paid the correct parking fee and has already provided proof of payment to the Claimant. The amount claimed is grossly inflated, as no private parking charge can reach £170, and no actual loss or damages have been incurred. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof of each and every allegation made.”

Gr1pr

Who signed the claim form   ?  SE or a DC  ?

If its SE I believe that you need to add the Mazur paragraph near the end

Nissan200

It was Sarah Ensall. Do you know where about’s I can find the Mazur paragraph? I’ve searched the forum but can’t find it

Gr1pr

Its discussed in the Mazur thread, but have a look at recent defences within the last 3 weeks,  especially Smart Parking cases etc, where she signed the claim form 

There is no way that you searched the forum between your post after mine, not in 3 minutes 

Coupon-mad

Nissan200 said:

It was Sarah Ensall. Do you know where about’s I can find the Mazur paragraph? I’ve searched the forum but can’t find it

Search again. It is already written in LOTS of defences including at least ten this week.

Johnersh

I think something more bespoke can be done with this. When does the defence need to be in?

Car1980

Sorry, TPS do occasionally go to a hearing. But this is one you'd welcome because it's bloody stupid.

But then again, it's the templated particulars so it might well be down for discontinuation.

For 3 I'd just say you parked, followed the instructions on the Claimant's signage, entered the full and correct VRM, paid the correct amount for the correct amount of time, and ate at the restaurant.

Defend what they claim at this stage. The particulars literally amount to 2 words. They have to make their claim, so don't do it for them.

All the nitty gritty can wait for the witness statement, if it gets that far.