DCB Legal / Bank Park Claim

steevie_b

Hello,
I've had a claim form with DCBL being the claimant for an alleged breach of terms on 2 August 2022 in Hull.  Issue date is 18 November 2025 and AoS was 26 November 2025.

PoC:
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge (PC) issued to vehicle AB12CDE at Fountain Street Bank Parking Hull HU3 2JR.
2. The date of contravention is 02/08/2022 and the D was issued with a PC by the Claimant
3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of terms on the signs (the contract).  Reason: ANPR Failure To Pay For Parking.
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £160.00 being the total of the PC and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees.

Parking was paid for at the time using contactless payment.  I recall the machine being in poor condition and the digital display was scratched and damaged.

I'm drafting the defence now, using the templates but I'm getting a bit confused with the para 3 (which for me, is quite easily done), specifically in relation to DCBL.  Does this work?

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 02/08/2022" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver, 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 £160 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

Gr1pr

The claimant is Bank Park,  not DCBL. (  DCBL are not involved at all here. )

DCB LEGAL filed the money claim on behalf of their client,  Bank Park

You will see both are listed one above the other on the top left of your claim form 

Your defence deadline is 4pm on Monday 22nd December 2025


Your paragraph 3 is probably incorrect,  it states that the pcn was issued on that date,  but i don't think that a windscreen pcn was issued, more likely several days later,  by post , DCB Legal changed their wording 8 or 9 months ago,  see below

2. The date of contravention is 02/08/2022 and the D was issued with a PC by the Claimant

steevie_b

Hi, yes, that's right.  There was no windscreen ticket, first I knew about it was sometime after 11 August, which is when the letter from Bank Park was sent.

Gr1pr

So read other similar cases and adapt their paragraph 3, ( anything within the last 6 months. )

steevie_b

OK, so changing that to:

"3. With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'."

And not put any detail in relation to the machine?

Gr1pr

You cannot use that one because the alleged breach is pleaded

Reason: ANPR Failure To Pay For Parking.  ( in POC point 3. )

steevie_b

OK, maybe third time lucky...

I had made an appeal, which was obviously declined.

"3. With reference to Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant denies the allegations of breach on 02/08/2022. 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 the allegation is about a 'minor keying error'.  The parking charge is baseless and the Claimant had the agreed parking fee."

Gr1pr

I suggest that you look at your first draft and add the first sentence about point 1

And 

Add from WHILST back too, combining them with draft 3in the middle 

Coupon-mad

steevie_b said:

OK, maybe third time lucky...

I had made an appeal, which was obviously declined.

"3. With reference to Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant denies the allegations of breach on 02/08/2022. 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 the allegation is about a 'minor keying error'.  The parking charge is baseless and the Claimant had the agreed parking fee."

I like this one, if it's all true in your case.

steevie_b

Thanks for all your input. 

So at this stage, just put my para 3 into the template on the "Template defence suggestion" thread and submit the defence?

Car1980

Yep. This will be discontinued.