Help Needed - Defence vs DCB Legal LTD

CP05

Hi all,

I have received a Claim Form from DCB Legal LTD, issue date 19th Nov 2025. I submitted an acknowledgment of service on 26th Nov, which was received on 27th Nov. I am now planning my defence.

I have included a copy of the Particulars of the Claim below. The claim is linked to 2 Parking Charges, the 1st is due to an overstay of 16 minutes from 2023 (paid for 1 hour and the time between the car entering and leaving the car park was 1 hour 16 minutes, not allowing time to purchase the ticket etc.) and the 2nd is for not purchasing a ticket. Total claim is for £485.88.

Regarding the 1st claim, I'm not sure how/if I can appeal this other than that the claim is for a ridiculous amount for a very small overrun. This was caused by a delay in food coming out in a restaurant and having a young toddler with us. I would appreciate any recommendations or previous findings that I can reference to. 

I think the defence of the 2nd claim is more straight forward. I can remember that there was a typo on the parking ticket, however, I am unable to find the permit. I emailed DCB Legal regarding this claim and they responded  asking for evidence. I spoke to my bank and provided them the Payment Details along with Payment ID and then didn't hear anything back from DCB's Litigation Team and then received the Claim Form. Again, I would appreciate any recommendations or previous findings that I can reference to.

Any help and recommendations would be greatly appreciated. 

Gr1pr

You can only defend  ( you cannot appeal. )

Which private parking company claimant issued them all. ?

CP05

Hi Gr1pr - yes sorry, bad choice of word. I meant defend.

They were issued by Euro Car Parks Limited. 

Gr1pr

CP05 said:

Hi Gr1pr - yes sorry, bad choice of word. I meant defend.

They were issued by Euro Car Parks Limited. 

Use the template defence by coupon mad in announcements for the ECP cases, after reading a dozen more ECP cases issued in the last 4 months first, so you get inspiration for paragraph 3 etc

The POC above made me laugh, various reasons. !

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 19/11/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 22/12/25

CP05

Thanks for your help thus far.

Can I check, with regards to Paragraph 3, should I aim to:

Defend against the Particulars of Claim 'The P&D/permit Purchased Did Not Cover the Date and Time of Parking'
or
Defend on the basis that the Particulars of Claim state 'Various reasons...' without any reference to link which date links to the specific claim of 'The P&D/permit Purchased Did Not Cover the Date and Time of Parking' and the breakdown of costs for the specific claims? I presume I could then use CEL v Chan and similar strike out judgements?

Thanks for your help.

Coupon-mad

Defend against the Particulars of Claim 'The P&D/permit Purchased Did Not Cover the Date and Time of Parking'

The above of course, as the Template Defence walks you though. We have hundreds of Euro Car Parks defences. Copy one. I can tell the one you've been looking at is irrelevant as it has 'various' PCNs..

CP05

Hi again, sorry I still don't fully understand.

Should I be defending based on the information I have received in previous correspondence i.e. there are 2 claims they are making. One of which was a 16 minute overstay and the other for 'no Valid Pay and Display/permit' which was due to a typo..  or just the information they have included in the claims form?

I am struggling how to draft the defence against the claim form 'The P&D/permit Purchased Did Not Cover the Date and Time of Parking' and whether I should also be putting in a defence for the no permit/typo as it isn't mentioned on the Claim Form. 

Coupon-mad

It's the same thing though. That breach does cover both scenarios doesn't it?

Just read a few defences. You'll see that people don't respond in any great detail in their para 3.

CP05

Thanks for your help.

I have used the defence template and amended as below. I would really appreciate any feedback on Paragraph 3 and whether I need to make any further amendments to the other sections. Thanks in advance.

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 allegations 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 and driver.

3. With reference to Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant denies the allegation of a breach on 05/10/2024 and 16/09/2023.

In respect of the alleged breach of contract on 05/10/2024, the Defendant has previously provided the Claimant’s solicitors, DCB Legal Ltd, with evidence of a payment made from the Defendant’s bank account on 05/10/2024 for two hours of parking. The Defendant recalls that a minor typographical error was made when entering the vehicle registration number into the parking system.

In respect of the alleged breach of contract on 16/09/2023, the Claimant previously issued correspondence to the Defendant alleging an overstay of 16 minutes, stating that the vehicle entered the car park at 12:57:22 and exited at 14:13:22. Due to the significant time elapsed since the alleged event, the Defendant is no longer in possession of the parking permit and is therefore unable to provide evidence of the exact time the payment was made and the permit issued. However, allowing reasonable time to park, disembark with a four-year-old child, and purchase a ticket, it is submitted that the permit would have been issued no earlier than approximately 13:00.

Furthermore, the British Parking Association Code of Practice, to which the Claimant is bound as a member, requires that a minimum grace period of 10 minutes be applied at the end of a parking period before any parking charge may be issued

 

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. 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

Make it just one added paragraph:

3. With reference to Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant denies the allegations of breach on 05/10/2024 and 16/09/2023. In both cases, the parking period was paid for and this was disputed prior to the claim, including proof of payment for the most recent event. It is believed that one allegation is about a 'minor keying error' and the other is based on the fact that this rogue industry no longer allows a fair 'consideration period' on arrival. It would have taken at least six or seven minutes to drive into the car park past the entrance, find a suitable parent & child space, park, gather bags & belongings, lift the defendant's child from their car seat, fasten the child's coat, put them into a buggy or trolley, lock the car then walk to the nearest machine to finally read the terms and pay. The Claimant allowed no time for this even though the contract only commences once terms are accepted and payment is made. Both parking charges are baseless and in both cases the Claimant had the agreed parking fee.