UKPC DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

Coupon-mad

And here I can also explain the context?

Nope. We don't recommend it.

Do not respond to allegations not pleaded.

Gr1pr

Save the stories and evidence for the Witness Statement plus Exhibits bundle stage next year,  perhaps in spring or summer 2026

The structure is a text only defence,  in simple terms, not guilty, this month,  later followed by Statements and evidence submissions a few weeks before the hearing date , typically 6 to 12 months later,  so in 2026

Stick to what you said above,  up to, 7 dates 

And please edit your thread title to something more suitable like 

UKPC DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

juiceistheaction

Gr1pr said:

not guilty, this month,  later followed by Statements and evidence submissions a few weeks before the hearing date , typically 6 to 12 months later,  so in 2026

Ok, is it likely that there will be a hearing then? Or more likely discontinued?

Gr1pr

juiceistheaction said:

Gr1pr said:

not guilty, this month,  later followed by Statements and evidence submissions a few weeks before the hearing date , typically 6 to 12 months later,  so in 2026

Ok, is it likely that there will be a hearing then? Or more likely discontinued?

Have a good look at the 712 discontinuations in the thread of shame by Umkomaas,  then you tell me what my answer is , but there definitely WON'T be a hearing if they fail to pay for one

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

you can use Chan & Akande because they've put the breaches as 'various reasons' and failed to specify the 7 dates.

You will need to state this exactly.

juiceistheaction

Hello again, how is this looking for my defence? Paragraph 3 is the one I've changed from the template, as guided. 

Any help very much appreciated. 

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 disclose no coherent cause of action. The Claimant pleads alleged parking charges for “various reasons” without specifying the contractual term(s) relied upon, the nature of any breach, or even the dates of the seven purported parking events. Such generic and incoherent pleading is incapable of founding liability for the substantial sum claimed and fails to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD16. This defect has led to strike-outs in analogous cases, including Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan and CPMS Ltd v Akande, where similarly vague and unparticularised claims were found to disclose no reasonable grounds. Further, the Defendant has evidence that the person in possession of the vehicle at the material times had permission to park, being a resident of the building. 

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

That's fine. If it doesn't fit, remove the final paragraph which is optional really.