CNBC Claim Form from DCB Legal LTD - Help needed

Gr1pr

You should have another paragraph,  the actual paragraph 3, that rebuts the numbered points in the POC from the lower left of the claim form,  so mentions contravention etc, as well as the above 

You also posted in another members thread

Diagnosis

yeah i didn't realise i was still in that post, while trying to find the additional info.. opps and couldn't see how to then remove 

Diagnosis

Is this enough or does it need more.. really struggling, sorry never been through this before.

3. The defendant was never made aware of the original parking charge and did not receive a Notice to Keeper.  The defendant can neither confirm or deny the contravention of the claim in paragraph 1 on the date in paragraph 2, due to the age.  Because of the missed notices the defendant lost the opportunity to challenge the ticket via the normal process, potentially because the notices were sent to an old address.  No detailed evidence of a breach has been provided by the Claimant. 

Gr1pr

Study my previous reply, you have no paragraph 3 that rebuts the numbered POC points 

I have never done it before either,  but that is irrelevant,  because there are dozens of examples on here by people who have not done it before too, all you need to do is adapt their paragraphs to suit  ( if there were none to see then you may have a point, but not when there are dozens of previous examples it's not valid   )

You can add your paragraph,  plus the untruth paragraph,  but you haven't addressed the POC yet,  in one more paragraph,  so if you are adding your paragraph above,  you will end up with 12

Its a shame that you didn't post your proposed defence in this thread,  for feedback 

Diagnosis

3. The Defendant was never made aware of the original parking charge notice and did not receive a valid Notice to Keeper. The Defendant therefore cannot confirm or deny the allegation of a contravention on 29 December 2021 (as alleged in paragraph 2) because of the age of the claim and the lack of evidence produced by the Claimant.

Because no proper notices were served, the Defendant was deprived of the opportunity to challenge the parking charge via the normal process (which may be because any notices were sent to an out-of-date address). The Claimant has not provided full, detailed evidence of a breach of contract (or tort) showing the Defendant (as driver) or the keeper’s liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Accordingly, the Defendant denies liability.

Gr1pr

You still have not added the rebuttal paragraph about the POC,  like this example 

. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. 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 

Each paragraph needs a number 

Post the paragraphs you have altered or added, below,  starting at para 2

You will probably have 12 when completed 

It was easier to adapt the one you posted in another thread on here,  had you correctly posted it in here

Diagnosis

Should I add something like this?

The Claimant has not provided evidence sufficient to identify the driver or to establish that the Defendant drove the vehicle on the date in question.
3.2 The Claimant is put to strict proof of:-
 (a) that the Defendant drove the vehicle on 29 December 2021 at the specified location;
 (b) that the terms and conditions on the signage were properly displayed, visible and brought to the driver’s attention;
 (c) that the alleged over-stay breached the terms of a valid and enforceable contract between the driver and the Claimant (or its agent);
 (d) that the amount claimed is a genuine pre-estimate of loss and not a penalty.

Diagnosis

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. The Defendant was never made aware of the original parking charge notice and did not receive a valid Notice to Keeper. The Defendant therefore cannot confirm or deny the allegation of a contravention on 29 December 2021 (as alleged in paragraph 2) because of the age of the claim and the lack of evidence produced by the Claimant.  Because no proper notices were served, the Defendant was deprived of the opportunity to challenge the parking charge via the normal process (which may be because any notices were sent to an out-of-date address). The Claimant has not provided full, detailed evidence of a breach of contract (or tort) showing the Defendant (as driver) or the keeper’s liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Accordingly, the Defendant denies liability.

4.Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. 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 PC can be £160 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

5. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 4, research has proved that this Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable. This is important because the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly or negligently misleading the court by citing that law. Despite tens of thousands of boilerplate claims from DCB Legal causing inflated default CCJs this year – as they have reportedly filed a ‘job lot’ of template bulk claims for this Claimant, all repeating the untruth about the POFA 2012 – Smart Parking has no cause of action against any registered keeper 

6. 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.

7. 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).

8. 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.

9. 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'.

10. 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'.

11. 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.

12. 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))'.

Gr1pr

I would suggest that it's structured more like this new one below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6637705/dcbl-smart-parking-limited-county-court-claim-defence-help-please#latest

But you must adapt it to suit your own case 

Diagnosis

3. The Defendant was never made aware of the original parking charge notice and did not receive a valid Notice to Keeper. The Defendant therefore cannot confirm or deny the allegation of a contravention on 29 December 2021 (as alleged in paragraph 2) because of the age of the claim and the lack of evidence produced by the Claimant.  Because no proper notices were served, the Defendant was deprived of the opportunity to challenge the parking charge via the normal process (which may be because any notices were sent to an out-of-date address). The Claimant has not provided full, detailed evidence of a breach of contract (or tort) showing the Defendant (as driver) or the keeper’s liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Accordingly, the Defendant denies liability.

4.Referring to the Particulars of Claim, paragraph 1 is denied: the Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Although the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle referred to in paragraph 2, paragraphs 3 and 4 are likewise denied. The Defendant has seen no credible evidence of a breach of the terms and conditions displayed at the site. The quantum claimed is manifestly disproportionate and cannot form a genuine pre-estimate of loss (particularly on private land), given that no actual damages have been incurred by the Claimant. The Defendant therefore denies liability for the sum claimed.