Court Claim - Insufficient Time Paid

Ironmama

Hi all,

Hello all,

I finally received court claim  from DCB Legal for insufficient Time paid. I requested more information few months ago (following direction from the forum), they sent a whole lot of gabbage plus a photo of my car at the said car park with a time stamp. Nothing about how much I paid at the time or how long I was at the car park for.

My date of issue is 11th of Nov.

I have spent the last 2 hours trailing the forum and found the perfect defence from another recent thread with similar issue ( https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/post/discussion/parking-tickets-fines-parking ) . My defence below; is there any benefit in delaying? Can I do the acknowledgment and submit defence asap or wait a bit without missing the deadline.

1.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.

2. The Particulars of Claim allege a breach of parking terms on 25 Jun 2022. This is denied. The Defendant has no recollection of the event and never received any valid notice or reminder. The vehicle was returned to the dealership in Jul 2022. The Defendant also changed address in Oct 2022. No documents were received at either address. The alleged event took place over three years ago. The Defendant cannot identify the driver and denies liability in any capacity. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the breach, the terms relied upon, the evidence used, the driver’s identity, and full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 if they attempt to pursue keeper liability. The Particulars of Claim lack detail and do not set out the alleged contravention with clarity. The Claimant has not shown that clear or adequate signage existed at the time or that any contract was formed. The Defendant also notes that any stay would have been within the allowed period, including grace periods set out in the relevant Code of Practice. The Claimant is required to prove service of all statutory and contractual notices, the DVLA data trace, and a lawful breakdown of the sum claimed. In the absence of such proof, the Defendant denies the claim in full.

3. 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.

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 recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) underlines the importance of ensuring litigation is carried out by qualified and authorised professionals. It cuts into the heart of bulk litigation and rips it out. In this case, the POC signatory does not appear to be on the SRA list for DCB Legal and the staff drawing up legal documents and attending Court Mediation to negotiate settlements are believed to be paralegals. Even if acting under supervision, this new authority holds that unauthorised staff cannot conduct litigation.

9. The claim represents systemic abuse of 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

2 needs splitting up and there should be 11 paragraphs,  not 9, if its a Smart Parking claim   ?

Try this one and adapt it 

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

When you are happy with the draft,  yes you could do the AOS and then copy, paste,  save and submit it 

1505grandad

Is this anything to do with your existing thread re Premier Park or a different one?

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 11/11/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 16/11/25 and before 30/11/25 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 15/12/25

Coupon-mad

How come there are only 9 paragraphs? 

Ironmama

Coupon-mad said:

How come there are only 9 paragraphs? 

I copied from another thread. They had 9 based on feedbacks.

Gr1pr said:

2 needs splitting up and there should be 11 paragraphs,  not 9, if its a Smart Parking claim   ?

Try this one and adapt it 

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

When you are happy with the draft,  yes you could do the AOS and then copy, paste,  save and submit it 

Yes it's Smart Parking Claim. Thanks for the link. Will adapt and submit. 

Ironmama

1505grandad said:

Is this anything to do with your existing thread re Premier Park or a different one?

Different one. Premier Park went away and I think closed the claim after sending them response from here.

Ironmama

Updated defence.....

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. The Particulars of Claim allege a breach of parking terms on 25 Jun 2022. This is denied. The Defendant has no recollection of the event and never received any valid notice or reminder. The vehicle was returned to the dealership in Jul 2022. The Defendant also changed address in Oct 2022. No documents were received at either address. The alleged event took place over three years ago. The Defendant cannot identify the driver and denies liability in any capacity. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the breach, the terms relied upon, the evidence used, the driver’s identity, and full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 if they attempt to pursue keeper liability. The Particulars of Claim lack detail and do not set out the alleged contravention with clarity. The Claimant has not shown that clear or adequate signage existed at the time or that any contract was formed. The Defendant also notes that any stay would have been within the allowed period, including grace periods set out in the relevant Code of Practice. The Claimant is required to prove service of all statutory and contractual notices, the DVLA data trace, and a lawful breakdown of the sum claimed. In the absence of such proof, the Defendant denies the claim in full.

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

Perfect!  

Ironmama

Coupon-mad said:

Perfect!  

Thank you

1505grandad

OP  -  "I finally received court claim  from DCB Legal for insufficient Time paid.

Para 3  -  "The Particulars of Claim lack detail and do not set out the alleged contravention with clarity."

Just checking  -  is it ok to include the para 3 sentence?