OBservices Parking and DCB LEGAL court claim

kryten3000

This identifies the Defendant as the driver. Don't do that unless Observices already know.

happidazi

Im unable to locate the recent defence.

My parking fine goes back 2022, so my main defence will be i am the registered keeper, but not the driver, and as its going back 4 year, I cannot remember who was driving.

Coupon-mad

You are able to locate the Template Defence. Top of the forum, one click away!

happidazi

Is it possible to check my defence, before I submit it.

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. 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, however multiple persons drive the vehicle and the Defendant does not know who was driving the vehicle on this particular date four years ago. This location has been used to park the vehicle on more than one occasion.

The defendant has not received any correspondence of the overstayed the maximum time allowed with evidence of the POC. The only correspondence received from the Claimant was a Letter of Notice of Debt Recovery on the 24th September 2025.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 21/04/2022" (the date of the alleged visit). Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

4. 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.

Based on the limited information given, this case looks no

different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with

contemporaneous photographs.

5. 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).

6. 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.

7. 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'.

8. 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'.

9. 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.

Gr1pr

Seems to be based on a 12 month old defence, not the defence template in announcements

The POC doesn't mention issued, they stopped using that phrase 12 months ago

Coupon-mad

Yep, that isn't the Template Defence from the thread pinned at the top of the forum,

happidazi

Defence

(Hope this is the correct one)

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'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.


2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, however multiple persons drive the vehicle and the Defendant does not know who was driving the vehicle on this particular date four years ago. This location has been used to park the vehicle on more than one occasion.


3 Referring to the POC. Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 21/04/2022" (the date of the alleged visit). Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.
Defendant was the registered keeper, however multiple persons drive the vehicle and the Defendant does not know who was driving the vehicle on this particular date four years ago, as this car park has been used many times while shopping in the local area.Recalling the circumstance of this claim is difficult due to the passage of time, but I can inform the court that I saw no signs because they were sparsely placed.  
The defendant has not received any correspondence of the overstayed the maximum time allowed with evidence. The only correspondence received from the Claimant was a Letter of Notice of Debt Recovery on the 24th September 2025.



4. 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.


5. 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).


6. 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 Beavis.


7. Attention is drawn to:
(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and
(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 references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.


8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control 'indicating that there is a market failure'.


9. 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))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.
10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes 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))'.

Gr1pr

Paragraph 3 is still incorrect, because of the topic surrounding ISSUED, its not in the POC, as I mentioned earlier

happidazi

Will it be ok to use this for paragraph 3

Defendant was the registered keeper, however multiple persons drive the vehicle and the Defendant does not know who was driving the vehicle on this particular date four years ago, as this car park has been used many times while shopping in the local area. Recalling the circumstance of this claim is difficult due to the passage of time, but I can inform the court that I saw no signs because they were sparsely placed.  

The defendant has not received any correspondence of the overstayed the maximum time allowed with evidence. The only correspondence received from the Claimant was a Letter of Notice of Debt Recovery on the 24th September 2025

Gr1pr

The above is in your paragraph 2 already

You should find a more recent paragraph 3 that addresses a Contravention in the POC ( its similar to the one saying issued. )