DCBL Fightback

DCBCROOKS2779

Hi All, 

I'm drafting my response against DCBL against a PCN issued in a hospital parking for going beyond 1hour allowed time. To cut the story short, the delay at the hospital was due to the actual appointment taking longer than usual due to additional tests.

I appealed to PALS as per the forum instructions and also responded to DCBL letters. However, no positive result. So, now I am at claim stage. 

Claim was issued on 08/01, I acknowledged it around 20th January and now preparing my defense.

They have stated the breach in my letter. I am sticking with the template for the rest of the defense and have updated my clause 3

3. The parking incident occurred while we were attending a medical appointment (Additional details) at XXXX. During the consultation, the clinician advised that her eyes required dilation prior to examination, a process that took approximately 45 minutes and extended the duration of our visit.

Our focus was entirely on xxx medical care, and we were not informed that additional parking validation or an extension was required. As the visit was solely for a medical appointment and the on-site parking is designated for such purposes, a parking charge should not have been issued.

These circumstances were explained to UK Parking Control limited, however, they were dismissed without proper consideration. Subsequent appeals were submitted, but these did not result in the cancellation of the PCN.

....Continue with the rest of the template. 

Please guide or provide suggestions

DCB claim fight.

Gr1pr

DCBL are not involved here 

The defence should be written in the 3rd person and should refute the poc

Study other ukpc defence threads over the last 12 months 

Coupon-mad

It's DCB Legal.

Le_Kirk

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

DCBCROOKS2779

Thank you all - Here is the attempt no 2

3. The vehicle was parked while the occupants were attending a medical appointment at XXXX. During the consultation, the clinician advised that the patient’s eyes required dilation prior to examination, a necessary medical procedure that took approximately 45 minutes and extended the duration of the visit.

The occupants focus was entirely on the patient’s medical care, and they were not informed, either verbally or through clear and prominent signage that additional parking validation, registration, or an extension of parking time was required.

These circumstances were clearly explained to UK Parking Control Limited, but were dismissed without proper consideration. Subsequent appeals reiterating the medical necessity of the extended stay were also rejected.

Coupon-mad

Yep, looks good.

DCBCROOKS2779

Thanks - This is the final draft - ready to be uploaded to MCOL. Please advise if it requires any updates

If I end up with character restrictions on MCOL, I plan to delete "10".

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. The vehicle was parked while the occupants were attending a medical appointment at XXXX. During the consultation, the clinician advised that the patient’s eyes required dilation prior to examination, a necessary medical procedure that took approximately 45 minutes and extended the duration of the visit.

The occupants focus was entirely on the patient’s medical care, and they were not informed, either verbally or through clear and prominent signage that additional parking validation, registration, or an extension of parking time was required.

These circumstances were clearly explained to UK Parking Control Limited, but were dismissed without proper consideration. Subsequent appeals reiterating the medical necessity of the extended stay were also rejected.

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))'.

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do and if it doesn't fit in on MCOL remove the optional final para.

Umkomaas

Keep following the process and your case will appear in the following thread later on in the year.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations

DCBCROOKS2779

Thank you All - Defence submitted via MCOL and status summary updated.

FYI - Still could have added another 14 lines to the MCOL space.

Let's await next steps now.

DCBCROOKS2779

Hi,

Just a quick update - got a letter about the acknowledgement of my Defence and 30 days for DCB to make a decision. I got a call today from DCB where knocked off £30 initially. When I asked them what would be the final amount they would accept, they said, a 50% reduction on the overall amount.