UKPC and DCB Legal court claim

Gr1pr

No, save the stories for your WS later this year,  but I suppose you could mention inadequate signage if you really need to,  but concise,  mentioned in passing .  The deadlines were given a few days ago 

But do edit your thread title to something more suitable  like 

UKPC , DCB LEGAL court claim 

Le_Kirk

migu12345 said:

Hello, 
No particular reason - was covering any potential identity trails (Read on the forum that parking companies may also read the information on this forum). The issue date is 8th January 2026. 

With an issue date of 08/01/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 13/01/26 and before or on 27/01/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 10/02/26

Umkomaas

migu12345 said:

Hello, 
No particular reason - was covering any potential identity trails (Read on the forum that parking companies may also read the information on this forum). The issue date is 8th January 2026. I believe you have already provided me with the dates as per your last reply but please let me know if anything changes.

"With an issue date of 08/01/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 13/01/26 and before or on 27/01/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 10/02/26

Please redact your claim form of any personal information and show us here please, we can then advise which defence template to use.  Everything is done via MCOL and not by post."

Quick question, re signs on the parking lot: 4 out of 6 UKPC signs are behind the property fence, one inside the property boundaries is hanged just above the ground and usually covered by parked cars and only the entrance one seems to be placed according to BPA rules.
Would you advise to add this into the defence? 
Thank you for the directions

Not for your Defence, but at the later Witness Statement stage. You need to get your own photographic evidence (date and time stamped).  UKPC will issue stock photographs which might persuade a Judge that signage was more than adequate, knocking out your Defence point. There again, play your cards right, and this won’t get anywhere near a Judge. 

migu12345

Good morning,
Technical question - re responding to claim online. i am to log on to www.maneyclaim.gov.uk - when clicking on the login/register it takes me to government gateway website and asks for 12 character login details. Is this the way it is supposed to be?

Edit:
I managed to log in using the GG so I take this is right way.
Additionally, my wife is a keeper of the car and she wants to get it paid and done with. As such i took over as I disagree. In that case should I fill in "Defendants full name (if different from that on the claim form)" and tick "I am a Litigation friend" providing my details before submitting?
Thank you

Le_Kirk

Yes, do you have a Government Gateway account, typically used for inland revenue tax returns?  If not, it is very quick to get one - used to be post but is now all on-line.

migu12345

Hi, yes I do have GG -managed to log in using my usual GG login and password and then I managed to login to MCOL using 8 character login and given password. - sorted now

Could you address second part of question:
"my wife is a keeper of the car and she wants to get it paid and done with. As such i took over as I disagree. In that case should I fill in "Defendants full name (if different from that on the claim form)" and tick "I am a Litigation friend" providing my details before submitting?"

Thank you for help
 

Gr1pr

Only the defendant can defend,  so not you, unless your name is on the claim form 

If she is the defendant,  use HER government gateway account and complete the AOS online on MCOL,  plus the defence,  IN HER NAME. !

DO NOT PAY. !

Umkomaas

While your wife must have her name attached to the Defence, and sign the Statement of Truth, you can do the ‘work’ in copying from the Defence Template in the Announcements at the top of the forum index. But you do know (and please tell your wife) that if you follow forum advice, this will go nowhere near a courtroom or Judge!

Coupon-mad

Just do it all yourself but in her name.

Re Mediation: make sure she nominates you to take the phone call ... see the first 8 steps for what to say! Easy stuff.

If this is s DCB Legal claim, it will be discontinued before any hearing so the daftest thing to ever do is to pay hundreds to make the thing go away!

It'll be over in a few months but the Defendant's name must be on everything. Of course you can't supplant yourself - a third party - as the Defendant in a court claim.

migu12345

Good afternoon,

Below is tailored defense draft based on the template. I would be grateful for any constrictive criticism. Thank you.

(I am aware of the length but at this stage i am more interested in wording and the substantive content of the text)

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. Liability for the entirety of the claim is denied.
2. The Particulars of Claim (“PoC”) are sparse, generic, and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 paragraphs 7.3–7.5. They do not specify the precise contractual term allegedly breached, the defined period of parking relied upon, the wording of the signs said to form the contract, nor how the sum claimed has been calculated. The PoC fail to state all facts necessary to establish a complete cause of action and disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. In particular, the Claimant has failed to plead whether the allegation relies on ANPR data, manual observation, or a properly defined parking period as required by statute.
3. The Defendant has not been identified as the driver. The Claimant pleads that the Defendant is pursued as driver, or alternatively as keeper, which demonstrates that the Claimant does not know who was driving. The Defendant is under no obligation to identify the driver and has not done so. Liability as driver is denied.
4. The Claimant may only pursue the registered keeper if it has fully complied with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with every condition of Schedule 4. Any failure is fatal to keeper liability.
5. In this case, the Notice to Keeper (“NTK”) fails to comply with POFA. In particular:
   a) Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NTK to specify the period of parking to which the charge relates. The NTK merely states ANPR-derived entry and exit timestamps, which are not synonymous with a period of parking and are expressly incapable of proving actual parking time. This statutory requirement has not been met.
   b) Paragraph 9(2)(f) requires a clear and mandatory warning that, after 28 days, the creditor will have the right to recover the unpaid parking charge from the keeper if the driver has not been identified. The NTK contains only vague, conditional, and diluted wording referring to liability being “subject to” POFA, which does not satisfy the strict statutory language required to transfer liability.
6. Accordingly, the Claimant has failed to establish keeper liability and may only pursue the unknown driver, whom the Defendant is not obliged to identify.
7. It is denied that any enforceable contract was formed. For a contract to arise there must be a clear and prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. On the limited information provided, the signage is denied to have been sufficiently prominent, clear, or capable of forming contractual terms. Any ambiguity must be construed contra proferentem against the Claimant as drafter.
8. Pursuant to section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”), the Court has a statutory duty to consider the fairness of consumer notices and terms. Sections 62 and Schedule 2 (examples 6, 10, 14 and 18) require transparency, prominence, and good faith. The Defendant avers that the Claimant’s terms and notices are unclear and unfair, and the Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs of the signage as it appeared on the material date.
9. The Claimant relies on ANPR data which records only entry and exit times, not actual parking time. Such evidence fails to account for mandatory grace periods and does not prove that any contractual term was breached. The Defendant does not admit that the vehicle was parked in breach of any prominently displayed terms.
10. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has standing to bring this claim. DVLA keeper data is supplied only on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant, as an alleged agent, must prove a contemporaneous landowner contract conferring authority to offer parking contracts and to litigate in its own name, including the scope, dates, and a site plan defining the land boundary.
11. The claim seeks £170, which is grossly exaggerated and unrecoverable. Any private parking charge is capped at £100 by the applicable Code of Practice. The additional £70 is neither contractual nor a genuine pre-estimate of loss and represents an attempt at double recovery of costs already pleaded separately.
12. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that a parking charge was only enforceable because it already covered the operator’s costs and generated profit. At paragraphs 98, 100, 193 and 198 the Court made clear that further sums cannot be added. The present claim is therefore fully distinguished from Beavis.
13. Further, in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB), HHJ Hegarty held at paragraphs 419–428 that the addition of administrative sums to a parking charge was disproportionate and penal. That judgment remains binding authority on costs abuse and was not disturbed by Beavis.
14. The courts have repeatedly struck out or disallowed similar claims for inflated sums as an abuse of process, including decisions of District Judge Jackson (Leeds County Court) and District Judge Taylor (Southampton County Court), where claims including false add-ons were held to be improper and irrecoverable.
15. Pursuant to POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5), any keeper liability (which is denied) is strictly limited to the amount of the unpaid parking charge stated on the NTK. The Explanatory Notes confirm that the creditor may not recover more than that sum. Debt recovery fees or late charges are not “unpaid parking charges” and are not recoverable in law.
16. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate any legitimate interest extending beyond compensation for loss, nor adequate notice of any parking charge or obligation. This claim arises from inadequate signage and covert ANPR surveillance and amounts to a penalty, not a lawful contractual charge.
17. The Defendant avers that the Claimant’s conduct in advancing an exaggerated claim, founded on a non-POFA-compliant NTK and inadequately pleaded Particulars, constitutes unreasonable behaviour within the meaning of CPR 27.14(2)(g).
18. In the circumstances, the Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4, or alternatively to dismiss it in its entirety.