UKPC and DCB Legal court claim

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81897446#Comment_81897446

But the 8 steps are given already.

They are in the Template Defence thread to stop people asking on thread after thread and showing us stuff like DCB Legal's reply … please don't show us that!

Your case will take months but it will be discontinued before the hearing, by late Autumn.

migu12345

Good afternoon,

Just had a mediation call. At the start, the mediator summarised the Claimant’s position after speaking with them, which was that the vehicle was alleged to have overstayed and that a defence had been received. The Claimant initially offered £260 to settle the claim. Summed up that there is not much to add and asked me to refer to the whole situation.

I confirmed that liability is denied in full. I do not admit to being the driver and do not accept any contractual liability. I also stated that the claim is not properly particularised and appears generic, and that the alleged contractual terms were not clearly communicated in a way that could form a binding agreement.

After the mediator spoke again with the Claimant, they returned with a revised offer of £150 without further explanation. I responded that, without any admission of liability, I would be willing to offer £10 as a gesture to resolve the matter.

We agreed to disagree and the mediation was over within 10 minutes including breaks when mediator talked to DCB.

Is this quite expected way of the mediation in parking fines cases? Mediation felt very short overall, so I am unsure whether this is standard practice or unusually brief.

Jame4ters

Mediation is just a very short call. You don’t have to even offer an amount

Coupon-mad

"Is this quite expected way of the mediation in parking fines cases? Mediation felt very short overall, so I am unsure whether this is standard practice or unusually brief."

You engaged for ten minutes longer than the 8 steps advises! There are 3 links in the 8 steps about this stage.

migu12345

Good day everyone,

I have just received the letter stating:
" Before District Judge … sitting at the County Court at …….
Because this Order has been made by the Court without considering representations from the parties, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed.
A party wishing to make an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of service of this Order.
IT IS ORDERED THAT
This matter shall be transferred to the County Court at …."

Could you confirm if this is just an notification that judge ruled the change of the courts(location) and nothing else?

Thank you

Gr1pr

Correct, its always transferred from the CNBC to the actual court of your choosing, so is in the 8 steps

migu12345

Good evening,

It has been a while, in a meantime I have receive the judge order as follows:

"Warning: you must comply with the terms imposed upon you by this order: otherwise your case is liable to be struck out or some other sanction imposed. If you cannot comply you are expected to make formal application to the court before any deadline imposed upon you expires.

Before District Judge Haisley sitting at the County Court at Manchester, Civil Justice Centre, 1 Bridge Street West, Manchester, M60 9DJ.

UPON considering the Court file

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The Particulars of Claim do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and are by this Order struck out.
2. The Claimant must by 4:00pm on 26 August 2026, file and serve a Particulars of Claim, supported by a Statement of Truth, identifying:

a) Whether the claim is brought under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

If so,

b) By reference to the definition of “relevant obligation” in paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, whether it is alleged that the claim is based on a relevant obligation:

i) “arising under the terms of a relevant contract”. or

ii) “arising, in any circumstances where there is no relevant contract, as a result of a trespass or other tort committed by parking the vehicle on the relevant land”.

c) If a contract is alleged, what was the consideration provided by the Claimant and what was the breach of contract.

d) If no contract is alleged, what was the “trespass or other tort committed by parking the vehicle on the relevant land”.

If the claim is not brought under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012:

e) The cause of action and how it arose.

f) If the cause of action is breach of contract, the parties to the contract, the consideration provided by the Claimant and the alleged breach of contract.

1. If the Claimant fails to comply with the above direction, the claim shall be struck out automatically and without further Order.
2. If the Claimant complies with this Order the Defendant may send to the Court and the Claimant’s solicitors a Defence in substitution for the Defence dated 05/02/2026 by 4:00pm on 23 September 2026.
3. At the expiry of the time limit at paragraph 4, the file will be referred back to District Judge Haisley for further case management.

Dated 23 July 2026"

Today, as this is the last day for submission of the POC, the following was sent by DCB:

"Dear Sors, 

We act for the Claimant. 

Please find attached a copy of the Claimant's Amended Particulars of Claim. 

The Defendant has been copied into this email, by way of service. 

Kind Regards,

[name]

Trainee CILEX Paralegal

DCB Legal Ltd

AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

These Amended Particulars of Claim are filed in accordance with the General Form of Judgment or Order of District Judge Haisley dated 23/07/2026.

Parties

1. The Claimant is a Company that offers private car park management services to private landowners; primarily to manage the way in which motorists are permitted to park whilst on their private land.
2. The Defendant is the recipient of a Parking Charge (“Charge”) issued by the Claimant.

Background

1. The details of the Charge issued to the Defendant’s vehicle, bearing the registration xxx (“the Vehicle”) are as follows:-

Charge No. | Location (“Land”) | Contravention Date | Issue Date | Reason For Issue

xxx | McDonalds | 17/07/2025 | 22/07/2025 | Parked For Longer Than Permitted

1. At the time the Charge was issued, the Claimant was instructed by the owner of the Land (“Landowner”) to manage parking on the Land.

Contract & Breach

1. The Claimant was prominently displaying signs on the Land stipulating the Terms and Conditions of parking (“Terms”) at the time the Charge was issued. The signs formed the basis of the Contract with the driver of the Vehicle and contained the following term: -

“90 MINUTES MAXIMUM STAY”

1. The following term made it clear that a £100 Parking Charge would be payable in those circumstances: -

“Non-compliance with the terms and conditions may result in a Parking Charge up to £100 (reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days of being issued in accordance with the Private Parking Code of Practice).”

1. By parking the Vehicle on the Land in the manner described herein, the driver accepted the Terms of the Contract by way of conduct, with the ‘parking service’ being the consideration (“Contract”). Upon entering the Land, drivers are authorised a 10 minute consideration period to read the terms of parking and make a decision as to whether to park on the Land. By remaining on the Land, the Defendant has agreed to the terms of the Contract which clearly states, failure to park in accordance with the same will result in a Charge being issued. The Defendant’s Vehicle remained parked on the Land in breach of the terms of parking and remains liable for the Charge issued.
2. Further to the above, the Defendant entered the Land at 15:35:38 and exited the Land at 17:27:22, thus resulting in the Vehicle being recorded on the Land for a period of 1 hour 51 minutes and 44 seconds. Therefore, the Defendant’s Vehicle was recorded as remaining on the Land for 21 minutes and 44 seconds in excess of the maximum stay period, thus breaching the Contract.

Defendant’s Liability

1. The Claimant utilises Automatic Number Plate Recognition (“ANPR”) technology on the Land to manage the parking. Cameras capable of accurately recording vehicle registration numbers are constantly monitoring the entrance and exit to the Land. A photograph is taken of each vehicle as it enters and exits the Land. Any vehicle found to have breached the Terms of parking will be issued with a Charge.
2. A Notice to Keeper was issued to the address confirmed by the DVLA in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
3. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) the “relevant obligation” arose under the terms of a “relevant contract”. The “relevant contract” was between the driver and the Claimant, who was authorised by the Landowner to enter into a contract with the driver, requiring payment in respect of the parking of the Vehicle on the Land.
4. Pursuant to paragraph 4 of POFA, the Claimant has the right to recover the Charge from the ‘Keeper’. Paragraph 2 of POFA clarifies that the Registered Keeper is presumed to be the ‘Keeper’ unless proven otherwise.
5. The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle and is therefore presumed to be the ‘Keeper’ for the purposes of POFA.
6. A POFA compliant Notice of Keeper was therefore sent to the Defendant at the address supplied by the DVLA, providing the Defendant the opportunity to pay, appeal or nominate the driver (if it was not them). None of which were done.
7. The Notice to Keeper included all mandatory information under Paragraph 9(2) including: -

i. The vehicle registration and relevant incident details (9(2)(a)-(c));

ii. The total amount due (9(2)(d));

iii. A statement that the operator does not know the driver’s name and address and an invitation for the keeper to provide this (9(2)(e)-(f));

iv. A warning that the Keeper may be liable if the driver is not named within 28 days (9(2)(f));

v. Instructions for payment and contact details (9(2)(h)-(i)).

1. The Notice to Keeper was served by post and was presumed delivered under POFA Paragraph 9(6).

Pre-Action Conduct

1. As a result of non-payment, the Claimant instructed Direct Collections Bailiffs Ltd to send further letters to the Defendant to prompt payment. As the matter could not be resolved, the Claimant instructed DCB Legal Ltd to send a Letter of Claim to the Defendant.
2. The Claimant subsequently issued Court proceedings as a last resort to recover the monies.

Amount Claimed

1. The Claimant seeks the total sum of £260.84, broken down as follows: -

Charge | £100.00

Contractual Costs | £70.00

Interest | £5.84

Court Fee | £35.00

Legal Representative Fixed Costs | £50.00

1. The Contractual Costs are claimed pursuant to the Contract which states: -

“Unpaid Parking Charges may be passed onto third parties such as debt recovery agents, at which point, additional charges may apply in accordance with the Private Parking Code of Practice.”

1. Interest is claimed pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a standard rate of 8% per annum until Judgment or sooner payment, or for such period as the Court sees fit.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS: -

i. Charge – £100.00

ii. Contractual Costs – £70.00

iii. Interest – £5.84

iv. Court Fee – £35.00

v. Legal Representative Fixed Costs – £50.00

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Amended Particulars of Claim are true and I am duly authorised to sign on the Claimant’s behalf. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed"

Any advice how to proceed would be mostly appreciated.

Regards

Coupon-mad

Await the next Court directions: hearing.

Then DCB Legal will discontinue, as always.

Coupon-mad

Unless you want to do this:

1. If the Claimant complies with this Order the Defendant may send to the Court and the Claimant’s solicitors a Defence in substitution for the Defence dated 05/02/2026 by 4:00pm on 23 September 2026.

I would substitute your defence because the current Template Defence includes improved wording and we really, really want Manchester Judges to read HHJ Moloney's first instance judgment in Beavis.

By emailing a substitute defence you can also include a URL link to HHJ Moloney's judgment. And a link to the CMA's Open Letter last month, too!

Gr1pr

Dont forget to add a header and also a signed and dated footer ( Statement of Truth ) to the amended ( not replaced ) defence , striking out previous obsolete sentences in red ink and adding your new additions in red ink

In other words, you dont send a brand new defence, you edit and amend the already submitted defence in accordance with the legal rules that surround it