PARKMAVEN DCB - COURT HEARING DEFENCE ADVICE NEEDED

OBIWAN

Hi all, tks for the superb advice here, especially @Coupon-mad for all the template stuff. I received a Parkmaven ticket last year and subsequent DCB Legal CC claim. I acknowledged and then sent the following defence that I cut and pasted from this site:

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

1. 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.
2. On the day in question the defendant arrived at the car park in question and noticed a green sign regarding parking that stated “Public Parking. See signs in Car Park For More Details”. The further signs were in varying print size, mostly very small print. I tried to read this however it wasn’t clear and was very confusing as they seemed to contradict the “Public Parking” notice at the entrance.
3. The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon. Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3.  That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA 2015') legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71.  The Defendant avers that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 in Sch2.  NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.
4. It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable.  The Defendant's position is that this moneyclaim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135.  Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper.  At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable.  ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' famous parking event.
5. Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs - which is denied - they are attempting double recovery of the cost of their standard automated letter-chain.  It is denied that the Claimants have expended additional costs for the same letters that the Beavis case decision held were a justification for the (already increased from the discount) parking charge sum of.
6. The Claimant cannot be heard to base its charge on the Beavis case, then add damages for automated letter costs; not even if letters were issued by unregulated 'debt recovery' third parties.  It is known that parking firms have been misleading the courts with an appeal at Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case) where the Judge merely reset an almost undefended case back for a hearing.  He indicated to Judges for future cases, how to consider the CRA 2015 properly and he rightly remarked that the Beavis case was not one that included additional 'costs' per se, but he made no finding of fact about the illegality of adding the same 'automated letter costs' twice.  He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed.  It is averred that District Judge Grand's rationale remains sound, as long as a court has sufficient facts to properly consider the CRA 2015 s62, 63 and 67 before turning to consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch4 ('the POFA').
7. Pursuant to Sch4 of the POFA at 4(5), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a parking firm has complied with its other requirements (denied in this case).  It is worth noting that even though the driver was known in Beavis, the Supreme Court considered the POFA, given that it was the only legislation specifically dealing with parking on private land.  There is now also the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 with a new, more robust and statutory Code of Practice being introduced shortly, which evolved because the two Trade Bodies have failed to properly govern this industry.
8. Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 private PCN, which included all operational costs, and they were able to overcome the real possibility of the charge being dismissed as punitive and unrecoverable.  However, their Lordships were very clear that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in such cases.  
9. Their decision was specific to what was stated to be a unique set of facts: the legitimate interest/commercial justification, the car park location and prominent and clear signs with the parking charge itself in the largest/boldest text.  The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuade courts considering other cases that all parking charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts and pleadings (and in particular, the brief and very conspicuous yellow/black signs) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.
10. Without the Beavis case to support the claim and no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.
11. The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist - nor to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations - and nor can the operator claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of the tests in Beavis.
12. The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.
13. Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of an onerous parking charge, would include:

(i)                 Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (the ‘red hand rule’ case) and

(ii)               Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd  [1970] EWCA Civ 2,

both leading authorities confirming that an unseen/hidden clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(ii)                 Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000,

where the Court of Appeal held that it was unsurprising that the appellant did not see the sign ''in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space''.  In many cases where parking firm Claimants have cited Vine in their template witness statements, they have misled courts by quoting out of context from Roch LJ, whose words related to the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio.  To pre-empt that, in fact Miss Vine won because it was held as a fact that she was not afforded a fair opportunity to learn of the terms by which she would be bound.

14) Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike. In the November 2020 issue of Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, the Chief Executive of the IPC Trade Body, observed:  'Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike."   The Defendant's position is that the signs and terms the Claimant is relying upon were not clear, and were in fact, unfair and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.

15)  In the alternative, the Claimant is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant. It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints.  There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this Claimant to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner. 

In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

16)  (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and 

(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance.  The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

17)   The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim. 

In June 2025 got a letter from HM Courts acknowledging receipt of my defence. At the end of Jan 2026 I got a Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track, with a list of instructions that I need to file a witness statement by 9th March 2026.

Apologies if I'm being an idiot, but Ive a couple of questions:

1. Do i need to file the witness statement again?
2. I just read the defence on the link below and its different from the one that I've used. Is the one I used ok, or has it been updated and do I need to use the other one below?

Thanks in advance for any help.

OB

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/039-template-039-defence-suggestion-nb-ultimately-your-choice-of-defence-wording-is-your-own

OBIWAN

BTW, I originally responded on the Govt Gateway site using the claim nbr and password on the claim form, but when I tried to login again it says it doesnt exist. The claim number shows up on the "RECENT CLAIM HISTORY" but when I click on it it says "No Cases Found"

Gr1pr

Paragraph 2 should have all been in the 3rd person ( typo corrected. )

1 the defence is not the same as your Witness Statement, so yes you must submit your Witness Statement plus Exhibits by the WS deadline , your court order demands it ( if they pay the hearing fee. ), so tomorrow

2 its too late to change your defence

When is the hearing fee deadline date ? ( because DCB LEGAL usually discontinue just before that deadline. )

OBIWAN

Tks Gr1pr. Fee deadline is 31st March.

So, just to make sure I totally understand:

1. I need to re-submit my Witness Statement by tomorrow
2. Is the WS the same thing as my defence?
3. What exhibits do I need to submit?
4. Isnt Para3 already in the 3rd person? It mentions "The Defendant" rather than "i" or "me". Could you pls let me know if I need to amend it?

tks again, your help is greatly appreciated.

OB

OBIWAN

Oh, is it ok to send it by email to the Court and DCB since the Govt Gateway seems to have forgotten the claim?

Gr1pr

1 no, because i don't believe that you have submitted a WS to your local civil court and also to DCB LEGAL yet

2 Definitely not

3 study the 2nd post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum

4 too late to amend it, but the word I is incorrectly used, read it again , but I made a typo, I meant paragraph 2

Gr1pr

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81914898#Comment_81914898

The CNBC are not involved once they transferred the case to your local nominated civil court

Therefore the last entry will be the transfer

Your local civil court sent you your court order in January 2026

Email is the standard submission method

Please edit your thread title to something more suitable like

PARKMAVEN, DCB LEGAL WS stage

OBIWAN

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81914899#Comment_81914899

Ok, so, just to make sure I totally understand:

1. I need to re-submit my Witness Statement by tomorrow to the LOCAL court and DCB
2. The WS isnt the same thing as my defence: could you pls elaborate?
3. The 2nd post in the "NEWBIES" thread is about POPLA.
4. Its a grammatical error so would a court overlook it??

tks again

Gr1pr

1 resubmit is incorrect, it's never been submitted to either of them, so tomorrow is that deadline , same to both

2 they are as different as chalk and cheese, study the newbies sticky thread, 2nd post

3 no its not. !

4 yes, so doesn't matter, but worth knowing

Edit your thread title to something more suitable like

PARKMAVEN, DCB LEGAL WS stage

OBIWAN

I've read the 2nd post on the STICKY thread, i even tagged it in my first post.

Whats confused me is that you said that in your first post that I cant change my defence, yet youve subsequently told me I havent filed a defence. You also told me that the WS and Defence are totally different, but you've referred to my WS as the defence that I cant change. Its all quite cryptic…

Obviously Im not legally trained. The WS that I submitted was downloaded from this site. Do you mean that the WS, PLUS exhibits constitutes a DEFENCE?

So I'll attach as exhibits copies of the Beavis signage, photos of the signage at the location, the WS and email them to DCB and the court tomorrow?

tks.

OB

Gr1pr

You submitted your Defence to the CNBC in Northampton last summer in 2025, as is standard practice, they logged your defence, they subsequently logged your N180 DQ document too, you cannot change these

Eventually they transferred the whole case to your local civil court that you nominated in your N180 DQ document, standard practice, they set her paperwork to your local civil court

Your local civil court then wrote to you in January 2026, as is standard practice , requiring your Witness Statement plus Exhibits by 4pm tomorrow

So up to now, you dont appear to have submitted your WS plus Exhibits to either your local civil court or to DCB LEGAL, your deadline is 4pm tomorrow

The Defence is not the same as a Witness statement, they are separate and different documents, months apart, to 2 different locations

A defence could be as simple as, NOT GUILTY

A WS could be, my vehicle was 200 miles away on that incident date, here are CCTV pictures and dashcam footage