DCB Legal Court Defense advice from the community please

pbsn1

Hi all,

Recently got the county court claim form, so have responded with the AoS on the portal and need to mount the defense. I've taken the template and added the additional statement that is suggested for DCB legal. Would anyone mind making any suggestions as to whether I've got a chance to win it or anything to strengthen it? Namely, clause 3 as that is the explanation that differs to the template - any advice would be greatly appreciated, as it's really annoying they are even allowed to do this!

1. The Claimant’s sparse Particulars of Claim lack specificity and do 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'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.
2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and admits that they were the driver.
3. The Defendant complied with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (IPC/BPA, effective 1 October 2024), which iPark Services (IPC member) is bound by:The signage failed to clearly communicate the mandatory grace period, consideration period, or rules on multiple tickets, so terms were not properly incorporated into any contract (per ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] principles, updated by the 2024 Code). The Claimant is put to strict proof of compliant signage with contemporaneous photographs.
   • Clause 5.1c provides a 10-minute consideration period at entry to read signs and comply with payment. The first ticket was bought 7 minutes after entry (within this period).
   • Clause 5.1 and Table B.1 mandate a compulsory 10-minute grace period at the end of the paid session, during which no PCN can be issued. The final ticket expired at 13:48, allowing departure until 13:58. Actual departure at 13:54:44 was only 6 minutes 44 seconds overstay, fully within the grace period. Issuing a PCN breaches the Code and is unenforceable.
   • The operator's claim of a 19-minute overstay (or 5 hours 19 minutes total vs 5 hours paid) is factually incorrect per ANPR timestamps and tickets.
   • Mitigating circumstances: Delay in departing was due to attending to an unwell baby requiring extra time for safety. The Appeals Charter (Clause 10) recognises childcare delays as grounds for cancellation or reduction (e.g. to £20). Evidence available.
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 Beavis.
7. Attention is drawn to:(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and(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 references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.
8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control '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))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.
10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes 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))'.

Le_Kirk

What was the date of issue of the claim form? Have you completed the AoS and, if so, when?

Coupon-mad

The defence is good but remove this because none of these things are required to appear on signs:

"The signage failed to clearly communicate the mandatory grace period, consideration period, or rules on multiple tickets,"

pbsn1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81898616#Comment_81898616

It is dated 18 February. I submitted the AoS on 22nd Feb

pbsn1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81899483#Comment_81899483

Great, thank you for spotting this and for taking the time to review!

Le_Kirk

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81900273#Comment_81900273

With an issue date of 18/02/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 23/03/26

pbsn1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81900519#Comment_81900519

Thank you for confirming. Is it worth submitting as soon as it is ready, or is there a benefit to waiting until closer to the deadline?

Gr1pr

There Is no real benefit to waiting, once the defence is ready to be submitted on MCOL !

pbsn1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81900659#Comment_81900659

I submitted to their email address as a response as a PDF attachment with the evidence attached and copied in DCB legal. Should I also submit on MCOL platform too or this is enough?

Le_Kirk

These days we recommend submitting on MCOL and NOT sending by email.

Gr1pr

You should be following the 8 steps and also the advice given by Le_Kirk earlier

The court system has set procedures, don't go off piste, follow the specific bespoke advice given on here

No evidence is submitted with the defence !

The defence is incomplete if sent by email