Claim form/dcb legal

pk.1980

hey guys.

Any advice would be appreciated

iv received a claim form from civil national business centre for the sum of £273.32. The date is from 10/1/2025 at my local gym (which I’d only been a member of a few months so wasn’t familiar with the parking arrangements) I unknowingly parked in a disabled bay which 1. I didn’t know was disabled and 2. It had been snowing that morning so the ground was covered in snow. I have followed the newbie guide on here and completed the AOS form on money claim.

Thanks in advance

Gr1pr

Name the private parking company claimant involved and any lawyers involved too

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below

Post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first

pk.1980

Thanks for the speedy reply.

The claimants are euro car parks and solicitors are dcb legal.
The issue date is 12 may 2026.

Thanks

IMG_5323.jpeg

Gr1pr

Adapt The template defence in announcements to suit your case

Coupon-mad

Yep dead easy. They'll discontinue by Xmas.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 12/05/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 31/05/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 15/06/26

pk.1980

thanks guys going to have a look at the templates in the next few days. 👍

pk.1980

Hello people

I’m working on a defence to send and so far have this. Any advice appreciated.

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: N3KF7J40

Between: xxxx xxxx vs euro car parks ltd

Defence!Statement

I am xxxx xxxxx , the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxxxI currently reside at 1, xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claim Form issued on the 12 may 2026 by euro car parks Limited was not
correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Highview Parking Limited”.

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

d) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.

e) I was at my local gym (which I’d only been a member of a few months so wasn’t familiar with the parking arrangements) I allegedly unknowingly parked in a disabled bay which 1. didn’t know was disabled and 2. It had been snowing that morning so the ground was covered in snow therefore no signs was visible. I have pictures to prove this which are datestamped.
* I dont*

f)The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

g) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

(i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
(ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
(iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
(iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
(v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
(vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
(vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence. 

3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions. For the avoidance of doubt, I was not the driver, Cannot be presumed to of been the driver and have no legal responsibility to name the driver to any private parking firm!

Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £273.32 for outstanding debt and damages.

4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.!

5. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.

b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.!

(c) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(i) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(ii) It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(iii) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
iv) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

d) BPA CoP breaches 
(i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the!font!size, lighting or positioning.
(ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

6. No standing - :
It is believed euro car parks ltd do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

7. No legitimate interest - 
This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.!

8. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

9. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 12th may 2026

(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

 

(10) 

(a)  The charge was unenforceable at common law as it was a penalty 

 

(b) That the charge was unfair and therefore unenforceable by virtue of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999 

 

(c) No contract has ever been agreed 

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed xxxx xxxxx
Date 2/6/26

 

Coupon-mad

That's not the Template Defence you were advised to use. See the Template Defence thread (no link provided. See my signature).

pk.1980

Hi guys

I have used this template defence which is more up to date with current posts.

Do you think this is sufficient?

Also should I add this to my defence :

) I was at my local gym (which I’d only been a member of a few months so wasn’t familiar with the parking arrangements) I allegedly unknowingly parked in a disabled bay which 1. didn’t know was disabled and 2. It had been snowing that morning so the ground was covered in snow therefore no signs was visible. I have pictures to prove this which are datestamped. 
* I dont*

Thanks in advance

DEFENCE

1. 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 Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the

allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability

for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the

Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract,

there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable

consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver

breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

(‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the

test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for

prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and

paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of

fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this

Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the

limited information available, this case appears to be no

different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with

contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right

to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided.

However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its

powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

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 10/01/2025, as

alleged. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper and

driver, 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 Due to the length of time, the Defendant no longer has the

parking ticket in question. The Defendant has parked in this car

park many times while shopping in the local area and has always

purchased and displayed a parking ticket. The Defendant believes

on the on the day of the allegation that the parking ticket may

have been displaced when the vehicle door was closed. The

Defendant has a witness that can confirm parking was paid.

4. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of

prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to

strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract

and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management

service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules

and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an

unverified Google Maps mock-up).

5. In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that

the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong

'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss,

and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of

the charge itself. None of these requirements have been

demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v

Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to

paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v

Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding

unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision

was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs'

further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to

£135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters

and 'would appear to be penal'.

6. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of

Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The

Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust

enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents

(DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last

Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from

motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the

added sums are not part of the parking related charges: 'profit

being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits

reported 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'.

public consultation =

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-o

f-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

7. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum

parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant

to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it

also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes

to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 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)).’

Schedule4 =  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4

8. The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice

compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest

(the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be

disallowed).

9. The delay in litigation has made retrieving material

documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly

prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR

27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant,

opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

10. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk

parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance.

Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after

discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply 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))'.

Coupon-mad

Still not the template defence! Paragraph 1 is important as it talks about HHJ Moloney.