DCB Legal UKPC claim - blue badge holder - defended

Wwombat

I put my valid blue badge outout

Nellymoser

I think your defence has to be written in the third person. Write the defendant NOT "I" or "me". May help you if you look at how others wrote their Para 3 in 2025/26. Seach forum for something like defence para 3 disabled badge.

You are looking to refute what is in the POC on the Claim form - "Parked in a Designated Disabled Person's Parking Place Without Displaying A Valid Disabled Person's Badge In The Prescribed Manner"

C-mad says Key story & facts. Concise!

I've never written a defence but maybe it could be something along these lines:

The defendant recalls his vehicle was parked in a disabled bay at Tritton Retail Park and a valid disabled badge had been displayed at the time of exiting the vehicle. The period parked was only 5 - 6 minutes.

Do check your first parking notice from UKPC it may state the time you were parked for.

The defendant admits a written appeal was not submitted in 2023. Poor writing and computer skills prevented this and the defendant was unable to source the help required before the appeal door was firmly closed by UKPC.

You have until 23/2 to submit your defence so do a wee bit more research then have another go at writing your para 3, post here for the experts to advise. Not sure if you should mention anything about the person sitting in the car you thought photographed your car.

Wwombat

1. The defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to relief in some of the claimed or at all It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, fy64xxx but liability is denied The defendant recalls his vehicle was parked in a disabled bay that the defendant is permitted to park in, at trinity retail park and his own valid blue badge was displayed at the time of exiting the vehicle. The dashboard is beveled and came back to find bluebadge slid off the dashboard, period of parked was only 5-10 minutes. The defendant admit receiving initial letter back in late 2023 a written appeal was not submitted due to poor reading writing and computer skills preventing the defendant pursuing, was unable to source the help required before the appeal door was firmly closed by ukpc. It a free car park but it does have a maximum stay of four hours with the (AMPR cameras) at the entrance and exit of the car park

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81870342#Comment_81870342

It's meant to be one concise para 3 then you submit all ten paragraphs on MCOL.

Wwombat

Is that better is there anything I need to put in or not or missed have I used the right generic parts

Wwombat

• 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 and driver,

3.The defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to relief in some of the amount claimed or at all and liability is denied The defendant recalls that the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay that the defendant is permitted to park in, at Tritton Retail Park, and that his own valid blue badge was displayed correctly at the time of exiting the vehicle. The dashboard is beveled and the defendant came back to find that the blue badge had slid off the dashboard. The period of parking was only 5-10 minutes but it's a free car park with a maximum stay of four hours monitored by ANPR cameras at the entrance and exit so no loss occured.

4.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))'.

Wwombat

it's ok you don't need to reply to thisthis

Wwombat

I have 14 lines to spare should I put anymore in the defense or is that enough

Gr1pr

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 and driver,

3.The defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to relief in some of the amount claimed or at all and liability is denied The defendant recalls that the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay that the defendant is permitted to park in, at Tritton Retail Park, and that his own valid blue badge was displayed correctly at the time of exiting the vehicle. The dashboard is beveled and the defendant came back to find that the blue badge had slid off the dashboard. The period of parking was only 5-10 minutes but it's a free car park with a maximum stay of four hours monitored by ANPR cameras at the entrance and exit so no loss occured.

4. The defendant admit receiving initial letter back in late 2023 a written appeal was not submitted due to poor reading writing and computer skills preventing the defendant appealing, so was unable to source the help required before the appeal window was firmly closed by the claimant.

Change your 2 & 3 to the above , add the above 4. ( or delete it completely. ), then renumber if you have to because each paragraph needs a sequential number

Edit, I have changed the name of the retail park from Trinity to Tritton, as mentioned below

Nellymoser

Check name of retail park you say Trinity but on your Claim Form (posted on page 1) DCB Legal say its Tritton Retail Park.