DCB legal claim form

Sparky1056

Hi, 

I’ve just received a claim form from DCB Legal on behalf of secure parking solutions. Long story short a van that belongs to me which is used solely for business was parked in a pay and display, but didn’t pay the minimum van charge, instead paid the car fee. I have been back to this car park and there are huge signs hung high and on every entrance stating £2.50 all day parking, which was paid and ticket displayed in the windscreen. Only looking at the small print on the sign next to the pay machine it states the van minimum charge is £5.50… very misleading and easy to get caught out and likely a genuine mistake bearing in mind a ticket was bought. 

I have not appealed neither have I admitted to being the driver, they are chasing me due to being the registered keeper. 

Can someone advise is this worth defending? The total now including court fees are £261.04. I heard DCB are notorious for dropping the case at the last minute or offering a lower rate through mediation. 

I have never filled out a claim form so have no idea what I’m doing. 

Any advice and help is much appreciated, thanks! 

Sparky1056

Here is the claim form with details blanked out. 

Any help appreciated! 

Car1980

Yep, can't find anything where they actually went to a hearing, only discontinued.

It's ok to defend as the driver now.

Use the template defence and for paragraph 3 say something like:


"The defendant parked their van in the car park. There were frequent signs stating "£2.50 all day parking", including at all entrances, and so this the amount the defendant paid. Only on later inspection did it turn out a higher price of £5.50 for vans was applicable, as this was buried in the small print. Therefore it is submitted that the claimant's alleged contract was insufficiently communicated to have been valid and in breach of the CRA 2015, which states:

Requirement for transparency

(1)A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2)A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible."

Sparky1056

Car1980 said:

Yep, can't find anything where they actually went to a hearing, only discontinued.

It's ok to defend as the driver now.

Use the template defence and for paragraph 3 say something like:


"The defendant parked their van in the car park. There were frequent signs stating "£2.50 all day parking", including at all entrances, and so this the amount the defendant paid. Only on later inspection did it turn out a higher price of £5.50 for vans was applicable, as this was buried in the small print. Therefore it is submitted that the claimant's alleged contract was insufficiently communicated to have been valid and in breach of the CRA 2015, which states:

Requirement for transparency

(1)A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2)A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible."

Many thanks for this advice! 

The claim form gives me a few options, should I defend the whole claim, or should I  defend some of the claim and offer to pay the missing £3? 

Car1980

No, defend the whole amount.

Sparky1056

DEFENCE
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'. The Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the
allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability
for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the
Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract,
there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable
consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver
breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
(‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the
test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for
prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and
paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of
fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this
Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the
limited information available, this case appears to be no
different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with
contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right
to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided.
However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its
powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is
not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant
does not accept that a contravention occurred on 05/06/2024, as
alleged. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper and
driver, 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.

3.1 The defendant parked their van in the car park. There were frequent signs stating "£2.50 all day parking", including at all entrances, and so this the amount the defendant paid. Only on later inspection did it turn out a higher price of £5.50 for vans was applicable, as this was buried in the small print. Therefore it is submitted that the claimant's alleged contract was insufficiently communicated to have been valid and in breach of the CRA 2015, which states:

Requirement for transparency

(1)A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2)A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

4. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of
prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to
strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract
and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management
service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules
and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an
unverified Google Maps mock-up).

5. In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that
the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong
'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss,
and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of
the charge itself. None of these requirements have been
demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v
Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to
paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v
Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding
unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision
was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs'
further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to
£135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters
and 'would appear to be penal'.

6. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of
Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The
Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust
enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents
(DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last
Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from
motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the
added sums are not part of the parking related charges: 'profit
being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits
reported 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'.
public consultation =

7. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum
parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant
to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it
also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes
to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 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)).’
Schedule4 =

8. The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice
compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest
(the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be
disallowed).

9. The delay in litigation has made retrieving material
documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly
prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR
27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant,
opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

10. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk
parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance.
Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after
discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to the
small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states
(annotation 38.6.1):'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))'.

Sparky1056

Sparky1056 said:

DEFENCE
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'. The Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the
allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability
for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the
Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract,
there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable
consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver
breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
(‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the
test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for
prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and
paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of
fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this
Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the
limited information available, this case appears to be no
different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with
contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right
to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided.
However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its
powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is
not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant
does not accept that a contravention occurred on 05/06/2024, as
alleged. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper and
driver, 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.

3.1 The defendant parked their van in the car park. There were frequent signs stating "£2.50 all day parking", including at all entrances, and so this the amount the defendant paid. Only on later inspection did it turn out a higher price of £5.50 for vans was applicable, as this was buried in the small print. Therefore it is submitted that the claimant's alleged contract was insufficiently communicated to have been valid and in breach of the CRA 2015, which states:

Requirement for transparency

(1)A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2)A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

4. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of
prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to
strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract
and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management
service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules
and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an
unverified Google Maps mock-up).

5. In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that
the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong
'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss,
and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of
the charge itself. None of these requirements have been
demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v
Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to
paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v
Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding
unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision
was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs'
further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to
£135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters
and 'would appear to be penal'.

6. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of
Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The
Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust
enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents
(DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last
Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from
motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the
added sums are not part of the parking related charges: 'profit
being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits
reported 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'.
public consultation =

7. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum
parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant
to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it
also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes
to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 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)).’
Schedule4 =

8. The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice
compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest
(the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be
disallowed).

9. The delay in litigation has made retrieving material
documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly
prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR
27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant,
opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

10. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk
parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance.
Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after
discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to the
small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states
(annotation 38.6.1):'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))'.

Does this look like the correct defence to submit? I had to remove the links as MSE wouldn’t let me post with links included..

My first step is to acknowledge the claim in 5 days, then submit the defence above? 

Did I also read something about getting the case changed to my local court? 

Thanks again. 

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 23/10/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 28/10/25 and before 11/11/25 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 25/11/25 You can choose your court later in the process when you receive the N180 (DQ).

Sparky1056

I have submitted the AoS today 28/10. 

Is there any benefit in longing out the defence, or can I submit and get the ball rolling to come to a quicker conclusion?

ChirpyChicken

No point waiting but you wont get a quicker conclusion