DCB Legal Hearing Scheduled

parking_defence

Hi all,

I was wondering if I might be able to get some guidance on how best to proceed with a claim against me from DCB legal.

I have been following the procedures set out in the newbies/defence template threads (to the best of my ability).

I am now at the stage where the hearing date has been set (11th March) and am looking for some guidance about how best to proceed from here, what are the actual chanced of having to attend the hearing, does it often get to this point with DCB Legal in particular?

Thanks in advance for any guidance given, I am new to this!

20260220_123726.jpg

Below is the defence entered and attached my POC (redacted):

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is
   denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this
   Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in
   their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability',
   which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').
   The facts known to the Defendant:
2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest
   belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of
   case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts
   necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable,
   on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of
   cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and
   it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and 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
   23/06/2020, 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.
   3.1 The Defendant has no recollection of the day in question. The Defendant was unaware of
   parking restrictions in place. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to
   where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was
   not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions.
4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an
   inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:
   (i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and
   (Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires
   prominent signs and lines.
5. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances
   is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is
   fully distinguished.
   Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government
6. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap). It is
   denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.
7. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This
   Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that
   the will of Parliament is to ban it.
8. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or
   archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts,
   merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).
9. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a
   statutory Parking Code of Practice in February
   2022: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.
   The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every
   day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals
   services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from
   motorists."
10. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) a draft Impact
    Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The then Government's analysis is found
    here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac
    hment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice.pdf
11. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true
    minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).
12. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating
    legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by
    small claims track rules. Further, claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair
    Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3):
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmen
    t_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf
13. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains endured by Defendants cost 'eight
    times less' than the fixed +£70 per PCN. This causes immense consumer harm in the form of
    some half a million wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, that Judges are powerless to
    prevent. MoJ statistics reveal several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with c90%
    causing default CCJs totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. The false fee was enabled by the
    self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who aligned in 2021 to allow
    +£70, each led by a Board comprising the parking and debt firms who stood to gain from it.
14. The heads of alleged loss or purported 'contractually agreed' sums are unspecified and not
    adequately broken down, but it is denied that the added costs / damages sought were incurred.
    In this industry, debt collectors charge nothing when failing to collect parking charges.
15. A typical private PCN model comprises a series of demands that the Supreme Court called
    an 'automated letter-chain' and the parking charge itself is already inflated to generate a healthy
    profit. In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and the £85 PCN was held to more
    than cover the minor costs of the operation. This is less about genuine 'parking management'
    and more of a PCN-generating scheme, where debt demands are part of the regime.
16. Whilst the new Code is 'on hold' and not retrospective, the new MHCLG Secretary of State
    must still introduce a statutory Code of Practice according to the legislation already enacted. It
    is surely a clear steer for the Courts that the Government said that it is addressing 'market
    failure' and in 2025, the new Labour Government has pledged to resurrect the statutory Code
    with a Public Consultation expected within weeks. Statutory regulation will soon replace the
    BPA & IPC Code, so the clauses in the (temporarily stalled) February 2022 Code should bear
    significantly more weight than the industry's own self-serving version.
17. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield
    Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50
    for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision ratified by the CoA)
    held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a PCN to £135 exaggerated the cost of
    template letters and 'would appear to be penal'. That judgment was unaffected by Beavis and
    remains binding as the only authority covering the clear abuse of parking firms routinely adding
    imaginary 'admin /debt recovery' fees to further enhance a large parking charge.
18. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
    ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered
    keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance, if they are relying upon 'keeper
    liability'.
19. The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added
    'damages' which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This
    Claimant's lack of large, readable signs are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in
    Beavis, nor do they even meet the basic signage requirements in the current BPA & IPC Joint
    Code of Practice, which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer
    Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').
    CRA breach - lack of prominent terms
20. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether
    a party raises it or not.
21. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer
    notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all
    communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk
    and adequately positioned where terms are bound to be seen) and all terms must be
    unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.
22. The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear
    terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2
    and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has
    to be a finding of bad faith).
    ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished
23. Unlike in Beavis, the penalty rule remains engaged. The CRA covers disproportionate sums,
    which are not exempt from being assessed for fairness because a 'fee' is not the core price term
    and neither was it prominently proclaimed on the signs.
24. The Supreme Court held that deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate
    interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from
    alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden
    terms or cumbersome obligations ('concealed pitfalls or traps'). This Claimant has failed those
    tests, with small signs, hidden terms and minuscule small print that is incapable of binding a
    driver. Court of Appeal authorities about a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge include:
    (i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's ‘red hand rule’) and
    (ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,
    both leading authorities that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been
    concluded; and
    (iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it
    was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the
    absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space''.
    Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR
25. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis that parking operators who do not
    own the land must hold prior written agreement from the landholder. Should the Claimant try to
    rely upon the finding in One Parking Solution v Wilshaw in this regard, it is averred that this
    appeal judgment was misguided and plainly wrong. The DVLA rules and requirements that
    relate to private parking operators are a fundamental set of rules specific to parking on private
    land and regrettably, HHJ Simpkiss was not appraised about the 'KADOE' requirement for
    written landowner authority. Even the BPA & IPC's questionable industry Code gets this right:
    absent written landowner authority, there is no 'reasonable cause' to obtain DVLA data nor to
    issue PCNs.
26. It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) had written authority from the
    landowner to offer and form contracts with drivers at this site, in their own right. Many parking
    operators merely act as agents (contracted to put signs up and issue charges 'on behalf of' the
    site landowner) and this Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.
27. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
    The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts
    or rules of law and reject most disputes: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful average 5% of
    decided cases (ref: recent Annual IAS Reports). An impartial, fair appeals service was never on
    offer.
    Conclusion
28. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these
    are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm. The claim itself relies on an
    unfair charge which is entirely without merit, and should be dismissed.
29. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:
    (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and
    (b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.
30. Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of
    Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs
    after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated to the small
    claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "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))."
    Statement of Truth
    I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. 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.

DE_612183

Chances are DCBL will discontinue just before the hearing date - before they will try and ring you to "make an arrangement"

Le_Kirk

Refer to the NEWBIE sticky second post; from here: -

IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT YOU MUST DO AND BY WHEN!

Coupon-mad

You need to reply to the allegation of failure to fully pay.

And search the forum for:

Mazur v Speechlys witness true

Copy & adapt a WS from the search results.

1505grandad

Just checking - is the claimant stated correctly as they are referred to as the following (IPC AoS members etc):-

National Parking Control Group Ltd 

(Trading as National Parking Control)

parking_defence

@Coupon-mad when you say I need to reply to the allegation of failure to fully pay do you mean in my WS? What would I do in the case that I genuinely no not recall the day in question? I will review that WS you have quoted, Thanks for your help.

@1505grandad I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand the point here?

Thanks all

1505grandad

I should have put "Just checking (with the experts)" - I thought that the full registered name, including suffix had to stated on the claim form (I am not sure hence query for the experts)

Coupon-mad

Technically yes, the OP could open by saying that there is no AOS member called 'National Parking Control' and the signs on site are in the name of a different legal entity 'National Parking Control Group Ltd'.

Castle

As from 21st August 2025 there has been a separate company called "National Parking Control", a 100% owned subsidiary of National Parking Control Group Ltd.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81892892#Comment_81892892

Even better, because that entity didn't exist in 2024, so cannot be the Claimant.

patient_dream

As above …… the entity is very important, I have been in court where the judge ruled in favour of the D,

It's like the Chase on TV, "WRONG PERSON ANSWERED"

Then we have a FAKE add-on of £70 which DCBLcall DANAGES ?

TOTAL RUBBISH and very misleading for the court and you. Totally against the Supreme Court ruling which of course judges know all about

As this is a very poor claim by DCBL, if they are stupid enough to go to court, they will be spanked, hence they discontinue

Regardless of any letters or phone calls or text offerin a g deal …. IGNORE THEM, PLAY THEIR SILLY LITTLE GAME