Defence of Court Claim By DCB Legal

dante987

Hi all,

I have received a court claim regarding a parking charge from DCB Legal (on behalf of UKPC) please see attached below - I would appreciate some guidance regarding the particulars of claim and the best defence in this case.

Please note that I have read the newbies thread and will be submitting AOS via MCOL today (its the 1st business day post service today). Also I have successfully set aside a CCJ using this forum before so familiar and comfortable with the process (albeit it was over 2 years ago).

Thanks.

Car1980

They'll discontinue, so you just need to use the template defence and a brief custom explanation for paragraph 3 e.g. didn't see any signs or signage not clear enough regarding registered users etc.

dante987

Got the below defence from Micky2022 (thank you!) as our claim forms are verbatim. - if no feedback I will be submitting this next week (deadline is 12th Dec)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6640055/claim-form-nov-2025-smart-parking-via-dcb-legal#latest


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 Particulars of Claim, paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Although the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has been provided with no evidence of any breach of clear or prominent terms. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. Any stay at Milton Keynes Central Station was either within paid time or covered by a reasonable extension, including mandatory grace periods under the relevant Code of Practice. Given the passage of more than four years and the lack of detail in the inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a full response. Signage at the material time may also have been unclear or insufficient. The claimed sum is grossly inflated, as no private parking charge can lawfully amount to £170, and no loss or damages were incurred.

4. As outlined in Paragraph 4 of the Claim, the Claimant seeks to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle, but the Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable, so the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is misleading the court by citing that law. As a result, the Defendant denies any liability as the keeper of the vehicle.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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'.

9. 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'.

10. 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.

11. 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

Yes that's fine as long as Milton Keynes Central Station is the address in question.

dante987

Coupon-mad said:

Yes that's fine as long as Milton Keynes Central Station is the address in question.

The astute eye of a warrior! I have edited Paragraph 3 as I have no idea who the driver was - this car is insured for 3 people to drive who all use it frequently. Let me know if I should change something.

Much appreciate the help - I wonder with the help of latest tech maybe the citizens can band together against the corporate greed in all domains of our lives. We need our collective voice to be amplified more than ever.

3. 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, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has been provided with no evidence of any breach of clear or prominent terms. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. Given the passage of time and lack of detail in the inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a full response. Signage at the material time may also have been unclear or insufficient. The claimed sum is grossly inflated, as no private parking charge can lawfully amount to £170, and no loss or damages were incurred.

dante987

Also is there any need to submit SAR to UKPC for this?

Gr1pr

dante987 said:

Also is there any need to submit SAR to UKPC for this?

No, ignorance is bliss, and part of your defence above 

1505grandad

" Given the passage of more than four years and the lack of detail in the inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a full response."

Is the above correct?

dante987

1505grandad said:

" Given the passage of more than four years and the lack of detail in the inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a full response."

Is the above correct?

thanks for noticing I removed that re-wrote as:

3. 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, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has been provided with no evidence of any breach of clear or prominent terms. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. Given the passage of time and lack of detail in the inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a full response. Signage at the material time may also have been unclear or insufficient. The claimed sum is grossly inflated, as no private parking charge can lawfully amount to £170, and no loss or damages were incurred.

Micky2022

"Given the passage of time and lack of detail in the inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a full response. Signage at the material time may also have been unclear or insufficient".

My alleged contravention occurred in 2021, whereas the OP’s alleged date of contravention is May 2025. Is this passage of time (May 2025) argument stand as a reasonable one? Additionally, should paragraph 4 referring to ‘untruths’ be removed if it only applies in cases where the claimant is Smart Parking Ltd?

Gr1pr

2 very good queries,  especially because the untruth is Smart Parking,  not UKPC, well spotted