Claim form from DCB Legal LTD

Eminowa

Coupon-mad said:

Eminowa said:

Coupon-mad said:

Hello again @Eminowa

Didn't you once do a successful counterclaim or something? You have legendary status in my head: what did you achieve, remind us!

I have won 3 county court claims, and I have also made 2 successful counterclaims when the PPC solicitors discontinued. My last successful counterclaim was successful with your help, Coupon-mad.
Yes, I know. However, the last claim I defended was in 2021 or 22. I know things change it terms of updated defence and other things. So I don't like doing things on my own without guidance from this forum, please. I always feel very confident when you and other active members comment and guide me with my defence, N180 form and witness statements. 

Bravo!

And this is why you succeeded and will succeed again. Because you research each time and don't assume nothing has changed. Perfect. Shout here if stuck at any point!

Thanks. I will

Le_Kirk

Eminowa said:

Le_Kirk said:

With an issue date of 12/12/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 17/12/25 and before or on 31/12/25 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 14/01/26

This was what I was looking for. Thanks, Le Kirk. I am not too sure how you calculate these dates. I would like to know how these dates are calculated to buy more time. Like coupon-mad has said. I have won a few claims, and also won counterclaims when PPC discontinued at the last minute, so I am not a novice on here, but I love to be guided by you all.
Long time, Le Kirk. As a Senior mental health nurse practitioner, I work longer hours, which include days, nights, and weekend. so have not been regular lately on this forum. 

To add to what @Gr1pr wrote, it is on the claim form: -

You must send or submit either the completed acknowledgment of service form or a defence to the court within 14 days of the date of service. If you send or submit the acknowledgment of service you must send or submit a defence to the court to arrive no later than 28 days from the date of service. Date of service is five days after date of issue.

Eminowa

Not sure what the mitigating circumstances what that led to the overstay, and I am not sure who drove the car to the retail car park. so not sure how to defend this. However, i have put these together. Please can you guys tell me what points to take out that are not relevant? Please. Thanks

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 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 xx/xx/2023, as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant 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.

3.1 Due to the length of time, the Defendant has no recollection of the day in question. The Defendant has parked in this car park many times while shopping in st Johns Retail Park, Wolverhampton. The Defendant was unaware of parking restrictions in place. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions.

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))'.     

11.  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.

12. That is before even considering the doctrine of champerty in private parking cases, where some of these 'debt recovery' law firms are known to advertise that they 'front' court fees to fuel

bulk litigation for commercial profit only when a sum is recovered. If this is the model used here - and the Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary - paying £ hundreds of thousands in court fees per annum and maintaining boilerplate parking claims with no sign of client (or authorised solicitor) involvement in the cases litigated looks to be contrary to public policy, as well as in breach of DVLA KADOE rules where the parking operator must be the data controller  throughout. The arrangement would be unenforceable as a result. In Tactus Holdings Limited (in

admin) v Philip Mark Jordan & Ors [2025] EWHC 133 (Comm), the High Court recently handed down an important reminder that, notwithstanding the changing nature of public policy, the rules against champerty and maintenance remain. See also Farrar & Anor v Miller [2022] EWCA Civ 295.

13.  With or without a physical Deed of Assignment, claimants cannot assign a bare cause of action and solicitor firms must not engage in arrangements that give them a purely commercial interest in their clients' litigation. This law firm is believed to act on a bulk data exchange 'no-win-no-fee' basis. In view of that and the landmark Speechlys case (where submissions from both the SRA and Law Society were sought and the High Court held that 'supervision' by a solicitor is not sufficient) this parking firm Claimant - NOT the law firm - is put to strict proof that they are involved in all their cases, that their agents' conduct is lawful and that the staff are authorised to conduct litigation. Whilst contingency fee arrangements are not illegal per se, in order to uphold the integrity of the solicitor-client relationship and the role of solicitors as officers of the court, this sort of bulk litigation can and should be disallowed, particularly when the court service is overwhelmed and this industry has been identified by the last two Governments as in 'market failure' (super-profiteering is suggested by the MHCLG in the

Summer 2025 Consultation).

14. The court is invited to strike out the claim and grant the Defendant's costs on the indemnity basis due to wholly unreasonable conduct. Although costs do not usually apply in the small claims track (r.38.6(3)), the White Book notes they may be awarded for unreasonable conduct (r.27.14(2)(dg)) including in cases of late discontinuance, if that now occurs.

 

Gr1pr

I doubt that your draft above will fit into the 122 lines on MCOL 

So its going to need some pruning,  plus any suggested changes or improvements 

Coupon-mad

Remove 11 onwards which don't make sense!

Eminowa

Coupon-mad said:

Remove 11 onwards which don't make sense!

Thanks i will remove 11 onward.
Its my 1 - 10 defence good to go please?

Eminowa

Happy new year to all of you. I hope you all had a lovely christmas.
Please do i just copy my defence n paste it on the defence section in the money claim website?

Gr1pr

Correct,  check that it fits, no spurious characters like. " < > , save, submit it if all OK 

Eminowa

I dont have to sign it or insert my VS d PCC at the top?

Gr1pr

Didn't understand most of the question but just do what I mentioned above,  no headers or footers,  no signature either 

So just 10 to 12 paragraphs,  to fit into the 122 lines