UKPC and DCB Legal court claim

Coupon-mad

It's not your case, it's hers, but why hasn't the Defendant used the Template Defence and stated (if true) that she wasn't driving which slots in where the Template instructions tell her to put that fact?

The Template Defence is right there to be used. Top of the forum. No link.

migu12345

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81865192#Comment_81865192

Hello, done now, Thank you for reminding

migu12345

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81865190#Comment_81865190

Hello Coupon-mad, thank you for raising this and for your time and help, I do appreciate.

Let me quickly present my thought - my understanding was that at defence stage the key aim would be to plead a legally sound and substantive framework rather than set out evidence or personal narrative. For that reason, I focused on denying liability and on the statutory POFA failures. (will use "I" as it feels more natural to construct my thoughts but you are right it is her defence, not mine)

I avoided stating “I was not driving” because the Claimant has not identified the driver, I am under no obligation to do so, and I wanted to avoid making unnecessary factual assertions at defence stage. Instead, I pleaded that the Claimant does not know who was driving and is pursuing the claim on an either/or basis

As mentioned before that would be the first time I am drafting a defence and any constructive criticism is more than welcomed. May I therefore ask whether, in your view, the defence as drafted is legally sound and substantive? And are there any specific reasons why the Template Defence wording would be of greater merit than the approach I’ve taken? (too long, too many details, some irrelevant words/facts or any other details that may weaken the defence as it is now?)

Just to be clear, I’m not trying to be cocky here — I’m genuinely interested in understanding whether there’s a procedural or strategic advantage I’ve overlooked, and I’d welcome your thoughts.

Again, thanks Coupon-mad and all you guys for help

Gr1pr

You are the person assisting the defendant, but you are ignoring the experienced advice we have given you and completely gone off piste, too long, doesn't focus on the core details, the defendant is not the driver

You should be adding that fact to paragraph 2 in the defence template, hence do so and add a concise paragraph 3 regarding any other failings, especially refuting the POC

The volunteers here will give you the best advice currently in play, not debate alternative defences at length, or at all

I took a quick look and dismissed it completely, as would a few other volunteers here, especially the stuff about failing POFA2012, what gives you the idea that UKPC failed to comply with. ? Or are you using a scattergun approach hoping that one point will hit the target. ? What do you know that hasn't been divulged yet. ?

I dont understand why you believe its a good idea to completely ignore the standard defence, unless you are a qualified lawyer who has good legal training and knowledge meaning that you are testing a theory or have a much better idea than we do ( this isn't a game, its litigation. )

I also noticed banned characters in the draft, like double air quotes. " " not allowed on MCOL, so remove any of the banned characters, " < >

So add 4 words to paragraph 2, add 4 to 8 lines in paragraph 3, job done. ( for now. ) & no banned characters

Coupon-mad

I thought the defendant was your wife and she wasn't driving. If she wasn't, she should say so.

I think it's a mistake not to use the Template Defence and also (probably) wrong to say UKPC has not complied with the POFA because in recent years, they almost always do.

This is why the Template Defence concentrates on other points of defence. Much more suitable for UKPC.

But hey, DCB Legal will discontinue anyway by the Autumn! No hearing.

migu12345

Good morning,

Thanks both, that’s understood and taken on board.

You’re right — the defendant was not the driver, and that should be stated plainly. I’ll revert to the Template Defence and amend paragraph 2 accordingly, then keep paragraph 3 concise and focused on refuting the PoC rather than speculating about POFA compliance as advised

I appreciate the clarification on UKPC and POFA — that’s helpful and I accept the point. The aim isn’t to reinvent anything, just to make sure the defence is robust and in line with current best practice.

Thanks again for the guidance — appreciated.

Following is the template defence and point 3 copied from this forum:

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 admits that they were the registered keeper but was not the driver.
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 17/07/2025, 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.
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))'.

Re point 3 (to help defendant understand the context):

a) 'The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 17/07/2025, as alleged.' - Should defendant keeps this unchanged or modify/delete? is this understood as Defendant denies any liability hence the contravention did not occur on that date (in other word - The Defendant was not the driver and denies any liability in respect of the alleged contravention on 17/07/2025) - my understanding, or is it taken literally - in which case the ANPR registered the vehicle on that day and this statement should be removed?

b) The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. - Does this mean no evidance (eg T&C) was presented (mine understanding) or is it to be understood as no prominent signatures being displayed (the terms existed but were not displayed in a sufficiently prominent manner to bind the driver/keeper.)?

Or do the above have other legal meaning in that case?

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

a) leave it as it is.

b) the meaning is: "I haven't seen any evidence of a breach. They must prove it"

I an perplexed that you said "You’re right, the defendant was not the driver, and that should be stated plainly. I’ll revert to the Template Defence and amend paragraph 2 accordingly"

…but then you didn't!

migu12345

Thanks for checking that for me - corrected, short and plain addition to point 2.

Appreciate your help

migu12345

Hello,

Once the defense is filed, what is the next step and what is the time line?

Will I get any letter or should i check MCOL regularly?

Thank you

Gr1pr

Check your MCOL claim history weekly

Check the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements near the top of the forum