Help with defence please.

DigitalSpy2022

Got claim form for DCB legal for not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space. 

Had my disabled daughter with me so was stressed. She doesn't have a disabled badge as she isnt psychically disabled, but mentally. ADHD, borderline personality disorder and learning disability. 

I don't know if that's a defence though? 

I don't know what to put. All I have so far is:

"Signage was not clear and I was very stressed. I had my disabled 

daughter with me"

Issue date is 28th of October and I have done the first part of appealing through MCOL just needs to write my defence. 

It does say that the breach is in terms of the signs so don't know if I can use that as an excuse either.

Help would massively be appreciated. Cheers

DE_612183

which car park?

have you read the newbies thread?

have you appealed to the landowner?

Generally "mitigations" do not get taken into account - there is no money in that - all you can rely on is hard facts.

Have you also already appealed? Have you said or acknowledged who was driving?

1505grandad

Can you post a copy of the claim form redacting personal info including VRM, password etc. but leave all dates showing.

DigitalSpy2022

DE_612183 said:

which car park?

have you read the newbies thread?

have you appealed to the landowner?

Generally "mitigations" do not get taken into account - there is no money in that - all you can rely on is hard facts.

Have you also already appealed? Have you said or acknowledged who was driving?

Maybird shopping centre in Stratford upon Avon. 

Yes I have read it. 

No I haven't applied to the landowner, I've ignored all letters up until this point when I received a HM courts letter. 

I don't know what the facts are though. I'm in the wrong but it's so petty for being out the lines. 

No haven't appealed before. No not acknowledged who is driving. 

DigitalSpy2022

Attacheshere is the firm 

Gr1pr

Just use the template defence and adapt a couple of paragraphs,  but no admissions 

The defence is written in the 3rd person,  no I or MY etc

Your paragraph 3 should be similar to this recently discontinued case 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6574573/dcb-legal-letter-of-claim-parking-outside-the-lines/p3

The AOS was done too early,  so assume that your defence deadline is 28 days from the issue date, for safety 

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 28/10/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 01/12/25

DigitalSpy2022

Gr1pr said:

Just use the template defence and adapt a couple of paragraphs,  but no admissions 

The defence is written in the 3rd person,  no I or MY etc

Your paragraph 3 should be similar to this recently discontinued case 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6574573/dcb-legal-letter-of-claim-parking-outside-the-lines/p3

The AOS was done too early,  so assume that your defence deadline is 28 days from the issue date, for safety 

Thanks.

So is this OK as my 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 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 registered keeper.

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 11/05/2023" (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))'.

1505grandad

" No PCN was "issued on 11/05/2023" (the date of the alleged visit)."

Please check your PoC on claim form  -  is the above a copy and paste?  --  always make sure any c & p is relevant to your case.

DigitalSpy2022

1505grandad said:

" No PCN was "issued on 11/05/2023" (the date of the alleged visit)."

Please check your PoC on claim form  -  is the above a copy and paste?  --  always make sure any c & p is relevant to your case.

Yeah it is copy and paste using the defence template and then I have copied paragraph 3, just changing date from the thread linked in this thread. 

No PCN was. I only found out about it when I received something through post. Nothing physical was on my car. 

I can take that bit out but just want to make sure I have written enough for paragraph 3. 

I see that someone else has added:

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 xx/xx/xxxx (the date of the alleged visit), "and so denying the defendant of any opportunity to provide their own evidence"

What if I add that bit in bold?

Gr1pr

Look at a paragraph 3 that talks about "contravention " in POC paragraph 2 of your picture,  so contravention,  not Issued,  they haven't used the word ISSUED for over 6 months  !

Always fact check everything you write,  especially when using copy and paste