DCBL Legal claim

Wilkstar147

Hi all, after following all of the information on the Newbie thread over the last few months which offers amazing advice also I’d like to thank those who provide all of this info.
My partner has been receiving debt recovery letters for months which have all been ignored and last week she received a claim form. I completed the AoS on MCOL for her yesterday so now need to prepare a defence which I’d like some feedback back on if you don’t mind. I’m not the smartest and a lot of the info has gone over my head so apologies if I don’t quite understand some replies. Below is a photo of the claim form and also our 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 added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

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, but NOT the driver at the time.

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 12/02/2022" (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. 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.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all 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))'.

Thanks in advance for your help

Wilkstar147

Apologies, photo of claim form failing to upload.

Gr1pr

Paragraph 3 is incorrect,  not been valid for over 6 months,  so you must have read an older case from maybe January or February   ?

Your POC doesn't mention ISSUED 

I hope that you used her government gateway account to do the AOS online, not your own  ?

Everything must be done in her name,  if she is the defendant,  but you can assist her as her P.A.

Who signed the claim form   ?  D.C or S.E  ?

Wilkstar147

Here is the claim form

Wilkstar147

Thanks. The AoC was done in her name.
i must’ve read an older claim then, i will search through the forum again for a more recent claim and amend P3. Glad I asked here first

Gr1pr

Issue date was 22nd October,  so the AOS should have been done by your partner,  yesterday 27th, or later,  so thats OK if its via her account 

The defence deadline submission is 4pm on Monday 24th November 

Wilkstar147

Thanks Gr1pr, I will redo P3 and post back here for advice 

1505grandad

Just checking  -  as this is a Smart claim should the "untruth" para be used similar to the following:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81626276/#Comment_81626276

The OP partner will of course be using MCOL to file the Defence.

Wilkstar147

Are you suggesting I should change my P2 also?

would the below be ok for para 3?

3. The Defendant notes that any signage at the location was unclear or not prominent enough to bring terms to the attention of a driver. No detailed evidence of a breach has been provided by the Claimant.

Gr1pr

Paragraph 2 stays the same,  if she was not the driver,  so as post 1 above 

Paragraph 3 should also address the POC from the claim form,  address the alleged contravention  ( contravention,  not Issued   )

Plus add the extra paragraph regarding Smart Parking not using Pofa2012 at the time , so there is an untruth in the POC regarding Pofa2012 , you will find that extra paragraph in other recent cases involving Smart Parking 

You didnt answer my question about who signed the claim form 

You should end up with 11 or 12 paragraphs when complete 

Wilkstar147

Apologies. It is signed DC.
Thanks for your help. I will post again with updated defence.
Roy castle charity head office have emailed my partner saying they will try to contact smart parking to get it rescinded. Is it too late for this? I must add the she did try in the shop but they were no help whatsoever.