Can I get some feedback on this draft of my defence. I'm worried I've gone over the top, added para's that don't need to be there and maybe omitted details I'd previously mentioned in this thread that might be important. Thank you.
1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not
2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is
3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is
4. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 4,
5. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but
6. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written
7. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a
8. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis
9. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by
10. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
11. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an
As the former keeper of vehicle registration **** ***, I dispute
the claim from MET / DCBL based on the following:
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
believes the Notice To Keeper was not compliant with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The Defendant admits that
they were the registered keeper but was not the driver of the
vehicle at the time of the parking event for which this claim is
made, so cannot be liable. However, the Defendant admits to being a
passenger in this instance.
passenger in this instance.
3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is
not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant
does not accept that a contravention occurred on **/**/****, as
alleged. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper,
paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant was not the driver
and 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. Moreover, given the passage of nearly 16 months and
the lack of specific details in the inadequate Particulars of
Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a complete
defence, particularly as the signage at the location is not of
adequate size, signage is too similar to thos of the adjoining car
park, with those signs being only a different colour but otherwise
identical to the adjoining car park and ineffective or inadequate
at time of the alleged contravention due to poor illunination.
4. 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.
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 - they have reportedly
filed a 'job lot' of template bulk claims for this Claimant, all
repeating the untruth about the POFA 2012 - MET and DCBL have no
cause of action against any registered keeper.
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))'.
