bay sentry / dcb legal claim

cherryshaker

hi all I’ve received another claim form from DCB legal

issue Date: 06 Jan 2026

AOS filed: 29 January 2026 (after 4pm)

Apparently I was late with my AOS, I’ve logged onto MCOL and there’s nothing there only the below

Please see POC below

cherryshaker

Grateful for any advice on next steps thank you!

Gr1pr

Study the 2nd post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements, plus study the first 2 posts in the defence template thread in announcements too

Bay Sentry via DCB Legal , issue date 6th January, so your deadline is 4pm on Monday 9th February, so in a weeks time

Adapt the template defence paragraph 3, but use all of it, the sooner the better

cherryshaker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81866514#Comment_81866514

thank you! Someone said I was late with my AOS so default judgement could’ve been made against me… do I still submit my defence?

Gr1pr

Your MCOL history ok, late but OK, get your defence done and sunmitted on MCOL and you should be fine

There is no default Judgment on your current MCOL claim history above

cherryshaker

Please can you check my defence below?

3.1 The Defendant denies the Claimant’s case in its entirety. The Defendant was the keeper and driver of the vehicle on the alleged date, but denies that any enforceable contract was formed with the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to provide or identify any clear, legible, adequate and conspicuous signage that would bring binding terms to the attention of the Defendant so as to form a contract on which a charge can be based.

3.2 The signage at the car park was unclear, not prominently displayed, and/or inadequate in wording and location to give fair notice of the terms and charges relied upon. No evidence has been provided that any such terms were visible or brought to the Defendant’s attention at the time of parking, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of this.

4. Vehicle Immobilisation

4.1 On the material date, the Defendant’s vehicle suffered an unforeseen mechanical defect which rendered it temporarily unable to be moved from the car park. The Defendant took all reasonable steps to address the issue.

4.2 There was no clear signage advising motorists what to do in the event of a breakdown or immobility, nor any provision forming part of a contract that makes a motorist liable for a charge in these circumstances. The Defendant did not intentionally overstay any permitted period, and any alleged breach is therefore denied.

5. Delay and Prejudice

5.1 The Claimant has delayed pursuing this matter for almost two years. This delay is unreasonable and has caused the Defendant prejudice, particularly as relevant evidence (including photographic evidence of the vehicle’s condition and the state of signage at the time) is no longer reasonably available.

5.2 The Defendant relies on the Court’s inherent power to strike out or dismiss claims where there has been unreasonable delay and where the Claimant has not provided clear and cogent evidence in support of its entitlement.

6. Unreasonable Charges

6.1 The Defendant further denies any entitlement to any recovery costs, including any debt recovery fees, as these were never part of any contract displayed or agreed, and are unenforceable.

6.2 Any attempt to claim interest at the statutory rate over a period of inactivity by the Claimant is denied as unreasonable and unjustified.

7. Conclusion and Request for Strict Proof

7.1 The Claimant is put to strict proof of all allegations, including (but not limited to) the existence and content of any contract, the adequacy of signage, and the basis upon which the Defendant is alleged to be liable.

7.2 The Defendant denies any liability to pay the sums claimed.

Like last time I will include paras 1,2, and 4 to 30 of the template also included. 

cherryshaker

submitted, now we wait

Gr1pr

Probably too late now, but the latest defence template is 10 paragraphs, not 30 like you did a year ago

MCOL doesn't allow enough lines for 30 paragraphs, only around 12 para

Clearly you failed to follow my advice

Coupon-mad

How did you submit a 30 para defence - by email? Noooo! You used a really out of date template and a risky method to send it to the CNBC.

Which email address did you send it to?

Did you get an auto receipt? Risky.

Do it again properly to block a CCJ.

The advice changed a year ago to a 10 para defence that fits in MCOL (NOT sent by email!) and as you are pushing it for time I would absolutely never have advised to use email to lodge this defence!

You are far more likely to get a CCJ now. Stop - and go back and use the current Template Defence (10 paragraphs) and put it in on MCOL this week. That stops a CCJ.

Le_Kirk

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81866563#Comment_81866563

Yes on your other thread here: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6583975/can-you-please-check-my-defence-against-ecpl-dcb-legal

Is it about the same parking event? Do we need two threads about the same issue?

cherryshaker

apologies for causing panic, I have used the new template and submitted on the MCOL portal not via email like last year.

see below for the actual submitted defence.

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4 or PD16 paras 3–7, failing to state all facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees already pleaded and are not sums genuinely incurred by, or owed to, this Claimant. The claim exceeds the applicable Code of Practice £100 parking charge maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for court intervention. The Defendant reserves the right to amend this Defence should further particulars be provided and invites the Court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied in full. In the alternative, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant and is prejudicial, making retrieval of material evidence difficult. The Defendant seeks fixed costs pursuant to CPR 27.14 and a finding of unreasonable conduct with further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. The Defendant has little recollection of events said to have occurred on 06/07/2025 and admits only that they were the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant was not the driver.

3. The Defendant denies the allegation that the driver breached the terms of parking by overstaying a free parking period. The Defendant is pursued as keeper only. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity, which is not admitted.

3.1 The Defendant denies that any enforceable contract was formed. The Claimant has failed to identify or evidence any clear, legible, adequately positioned or prominent signage capable of communicating contractual terms or a parking charge to a reasonable motorist. No contract capable of binding a driver, let alone a keeper, is admitted.

3.2 The signage at the site was unclear, insufficiently prominent and/or inadequate in wording and placement to give fair notice of the terms relied upon. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the signage as it appeared on the material date, including content, positioning and visibility.

4. On the material date, the vehicle suffered an unforeseen mechanical defect which rendered it temporarily immobile and unable to leave the site within any stated free parking period. Reasonable steps were taken by the driver to address the issue.

4.1 There was no clear signage or contractual term advising motorists what to do in the event of a breakdown, nor any term imposing liability in circumstances where a vehicle cannot be moved. Any alleged overstay was involuntary and incapable of constituting a contractual breach.

5. The Claimant alternatively seeks to rely upon Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’) to pursue the Defendant as keeper. The Defendant denies that the Claimant has complied with the strict statutory requirements of POFA and therefore denies that any keeper liability can arise.

6. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached. To form a contract there must be offer, acceptance and consideration, all of which are denied. Pursuant to s71 Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Court has a duty to assess fairness. Having regard to ss62 and Schedule 2 (including examples 6, 10, 14 and 18), the Claimant’s terms appear unfair, unclear and lacking prominence. The Claimant is put to strict proof by contemporaneous photographs.

7. DVLA keeper data is only supplied where a parking operator has appropriate landowner authority. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its standing to sue, including the full unredacted landowner agreement, its scope, dates, authority to litigate and a site boundary plan.

8. To impose a parking charge there must be both a legitimate interest beyond mere compensation for loss and adequate notice of the charge. Neither has been demonstrated. This charge arises from poor signage and covert enforcement and is fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

9. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193 and 198 of Beavis, and to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB), where HHJ Hegarty held that inflated ‘admin’ costs added to a parking charge were penal and unrecoverable.

10. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act and Government findings identify systemic abuse by parking operators and debt recovery agents, including disproportionate profits and market failure. Such false add-ons fuel bulk litigation and overburden HMCTS.

11. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of POFA, the Claimant is prohibited from recovering more than the unpaid parking charge. Explanatory Note 221 confirms that late fees and debt recovery costs are not recoverable from a keeper. Even if POFA compliance were established (which is denied), there is no keeper liability for invented add-ons.

12. The claim for £170 is denied. The additional sums were not displayed on signage, not agreed, and constitute an abuse of process. Any claim for statutory interest pursuant to s.69 County Courts Act 1984 is denied as unreasonable, given the Claimant’s delay.

13. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all allegations, including the existence and terms of any contract, signage adequacy, POFA compliance, driver identity, standing to sue and entitlement to the sums claimed.

14. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever and invites the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety.