Claim Form: DCB Legal - Sept 2025 (Advice Needed)

Skywalker95

Hi all,

I am not sure if I was supposed to create a new thread, I am assuming there's going to be so many of these threads. But I thought this may be the easiest way. I am hoping you can help me with a claim form that I have received. 

I have received this claim form after ignoring letters from the parking company and debt collector. However, when I received the letter before court procedure from the debt collector I emailed them the following:

"Dear DCB Legal,
Thank you for getting back to me. I refer to your subsequent response.
I deny any debt to your client, MET Parking Services Ltd. As the registered keeper, I am not liable because your client has failed to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4).

In particular:
1. The Notice to Keeper was issued 26 days after the alleged contravention, well outside the statutory 14-day limit under paragraph 9(4).
2. The notice fails to specify a “period of parking” as required under paragraph 9(2)(a).
3. The mandatory keeper liability warning under paragraph 9(2)(f) is absent.

Accordingly, no keeper liability can arise. As I am under no obligation to identify the driver, your client has no lawful basis to pursue me. Further, the alleged breach (“leaving site”) is an unfair and unenforceable term, incapable of forming a binding consumer contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.Moreover, the signage at Southgate Park is confusing and fails the test of clarity and prominence required for a consumer contract. The Starbucks and McDonald’s areas appear to share the same car park, with no clear division or obvious warnings that different parking terms apply. I put your client to strict proof that the signage at the site was sufficiently clear, prominent, and legible to form a contract with the driver. I also require strict proof that MET Parking Services Ltd has sufficient interest in the land, or written authority from the landowner, to issue and enforce parking charges. Any proceedings will be vigorously defended, and an application for costs will be made for unreasonable conduct should your client proceed despite the clear defects in their case. Please confirm that this matter is now closed."

They responded back to drop the cost down to £90 and said the following:

"We write in response to your correspondence received in our office. The parking charge has been issued due to the vehicle was left in Southgate Park Car Park without payment made for parking and occupants left Southgate Park premises. The signs on site would have clearly outlined the terms and conditions of the site. When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract and agreeing to the terms by parking and staying on the site. Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract. The notice to keeper was issued to you on 14/06/2024. A copy is attached. You were afforded the opportunity to appeal the parking charge, transfer liability to the diver (if it was not you) or make payment. Neither a successful appeal, nor an adequate nomination were received, yet payment remains outstanding. The reminder notice was issued to you on 19/07/2024. A copy is attached. This notice reiterated that payment was outstanding and confirmed that legal action may be taken, and additional costs incurred if the parking charge was not paid. If there are any documents or information that you have requested, but that are not enclosed. It is because we have deemed the request to be disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute. We respectfully draw your attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of the protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to act reasonably and proportionately. Without prejudice - I can confirm our client would be agreeable to £90 in full and final settlement of this claim. The current outstanding balance is £170"

I responded back

I refer to your Letter of Claim and subsequent response. I deny any debt to your client, MET Parking Services Ltd. As the registered keeper, I am not liable because your client has failed to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4).

In particular:
The Notice to Keeper was issued 26 days after the alleged contravention, well outside the statutory 14-day limit under paragraph 9(4). The notice fails to specify a “period of parking” as required under paragraph 9(2)(a). The mandatory keeper liability warning under paragraph 9(2)(f) is absent.

Accordingly, no keeper liability can arise. As I am under no obligation to identify the driver, your client has no lawful basis to pursue me. Further, even if your client were entitled to pursue the driver, the alleged breach (“leaving site”) is an unfair and unenforceable term, incapable of forming a binding consumer contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. I put your client to strict proof that the signage at the site was sufficiently clear, prominent, and legible to form a contract with the driver. I also require strict proof that MET Parking Services Ltd has sufficient interest in the land, or written authority from the landowner, to issue and enforce parking charges. The signage at Southgate Park is confusing and fails the test of clarity and prominence required for a consumer contract. The Starbucks and McDonald’s areas appear to share the same car park, with no clear division or obvious warnings that different parking terms apply. Any alleged terms such as ‘no leaving site’ are hidden in small print and not visible to drivers at the point of parking. I put your client to strict proof that their signage was sufficiently clear, prominent, and legible to form a contract with any driver. Any proceedings will be vigorously defended, and an application for costs will be made for unreasonable conduct should your client proceed despite the clear defects in their case. Please confirm that this matter is now closed.

I realised that this would have maybe worked when I received the ticket and appealled via POPLA. However, now I have the claim form. 

Issue date: 16/09/2025

Claimant: MET Parking Services LTD

Address for sending Documents: DCB Legal

I filed AOS on 30/09/2025

I have attached a photo of the POC

Hoping you can help me and if I have a strong chance of winning this. Please let me know if you need any more information. Thank you in advance 

Gr1pr

You are correct in starting a new thread about any case of yours that doesn't have a previous thread about it 

Met Parking via DCB Legal,  standard stuff, but check who signed the claim form on the back near the top 

Use the template defence,  adapt paragraph 3 and post it below 

Your defence deadline for MCOL entry is Monday 20th October at 4pm

Skywalker95

Signature is from - Claimant's legal representative as defined by CPR 2.3 (1))

Gr1pr

So a solicitor,  NOT S Ensall 

Coupon-mad

David Croot or whatever his name is? The magician who can file claims in seconds.

Skywalker95

The name is Sarah Ensall on the signature. 

Gr1pr

Skywalker95 said:

The name is Sarah Ensall on the signature. 

So not a solicitor   ( as discussed in the Mazur thread  )

Coupon-mad

Skywalker95 said:

The name is Sarah Ensall on the signature. 

Search the forum for NEWEST results then. Saves us endlessly repeating ourselves.

Skywalker95

I have copied all 30 points in the template defence. For this purpose I am only submitting the paragraphs I have made changes to. If you can be kind to give this a read and see if anything needs to be changed before I submit the defence. Thank you.

The facts known to the Defendant:

1. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

(I have wrote driver) would this cause any issues as the emails I had sent to DCB which you can see above I denied the driver. I couldn't remember if I was the driver only until they sent me still pictures from the day. 

2. The Defendant contends that the MET parking operation at Southgate Car Park has been deliberately designed to confuse drivers. The sign within the car park indicate that customers are entitled to one hour's free parking, but the sign does not specify any particular restaurant, only stating that customers must stay “on the site”. However, these two restaurants are super close and many drivers would perceive this as a single car park. Furthermore, there are no clearly defined boundaries delineating the different zones within the car park. The singage is obscured and adding confusion. As it's been so long I can't recall that some of the passengers in the vehicle may have visited both McDonald's and Starbucks. The vehicle was parked for less than 1 hour too.

Coupon-mad

The Template Defence is 10 paragraphs.

Le_Kirk

Once you have found the latest template defence as pointed out to you by @Coupon-mad, you need to get on with it, as your deadline for submission (via MCOL - not email) is Monday.