Help Needed: UKPC/DCB Legal Court Claim – Moving Into New Home (5 PCNs)

Abs101

Hi all,

I really need help drafting my defence for a parking case filed by DCB Legal on behalf of UKPC.

Here’s the full situation:

• I moved into a new apartment and got my keys on 22nd April 2025.
• Between 24th and 27th April 2025, I was moving in furniture and belongings.
• The building has underground parking, but it wasn’t practical to use it for moving heavy items — it would have been unsafe and logistically impossible to carry things upstairs from there.
• So, during that move-in period, I parked either on the pavement close to the front entrance or in the parking space directly in front of my flat (which I now use).
• Later, I found out I had been issued 5 separate UKPC Parking Charge Notices:
  
• 3 for “parking on pavement”
• 2 for “parking too long”
• 
  

Unfortunately, although I had updated my address with the DVLA, UKPC and DCB Legal sent all correspondence to my old address.

I only received the final notices at my new address recently — likely after they checked and updated the address.

By the time I got them, they had already instructed DCB Legal and were chasing via debt collectors.

Current Status

• Claimant: UK Parking Control Ltd (via DCB Legal)
• Date of Claim: 06/11/2025
• Date Received: 11/11/2025
• Acknowledgment of Service (AoS): Filed today via MCOL (11/11/2025)

My Points / Thoughts

• The tickets were issued while I was legitimately moving into my new home.
• There was no intention to permanently park there, just temporary for moving items.
• I was not causing an obstruction or danger.
• I have a valid resident permit and underground space, showing I’m a resident.
• The letters went to my old address, so I couldn’t appeal earlier.
• I feel the charges are unfair and excessive, especially as they relate to the process of moving in.

I have attached photos to the post as below 

courtesy of claim letter (1)
email extract from DCB to notify me of claim (2)
Pics of parking on pavement  with signage (3)
pics of parking for too long. (4)
Tenancy agreement (5)

Coupon-mad

Search for Jopson Homeguard defence

Car1980

Appalling signage 

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 06/11/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 11/11/25 and before 25/11/25 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 09/12/25

Abs101

Hi all thanks for your inputs so far, here is my defence, kindly help take a look and give corrections and suggestions please @Coupon-mad , @Le_Kirk.    

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 PCNs were issued during the period when the Defendant was moving into a new apartment. During this time, the vehicle was only briefly stopped near the entrance on several occasions for the sole purpose of unloading items, as the underground parking is impractical for moving heavy belongings. These short unloading stops did not obstruct access or pose any risk and do not constitute “parking”, as confirmed in Jopson v Homeguard [2016], where HHJ Harris QC held that temporary stopping for loading or unloading is not “parking” and cannot give rise to a parking charge. The signage relied upon was also unclear, poorly positioned, and incapable of forming any contract with a lawful tenant carrying out essential unloading. 

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))'

Coupon-mad

Yep that is fine. Easy, innit?!

Abs101

@Coupon-mad yourself and this forum has made it a lot easy to respond. 

Thanks for all you do. I’ve now submitted my defence via mcol. What do I do next, do I keep checking mcol or will receive an email with the DQ’s

Gr1pr

You study the 8 steps that nobody seems to read in the defence template thread,  first post ( hint,  you have just completed step 1 of 8  )

Good luck  ( but more research is required in order to see this through,  study other claims on here, especially any over the £600 threshold  ). You are probably looking at a conclusion within the next 6 to 12 months 

1505grandad

Keep following the 8 steps in the Defence Template Announcement.

Abs101

Yes, I saw the steps now. Just curious if the DQ’s will be sent to me via mcol dashboard or to my email I filled in the defence form. 

Gr1pr

Abs101 said:

Yes, I saw the steps now. Just curious if the DQ’s will be sent to me via mcol dashboard or to my email I filled in the defence form. 

Post, same as the N1SDT claim form pack