DCB LEGAL, HIGHVIEW court claim, defended

Moco_2

Dear Team,

I received a Letter of Claim, dated 26th March 2026, from dcb legal and then a claim form with an issue date of 28th April 2026.

Prior to this, I also received a 'Solicitors Reminder Letter-Unpaid Parking Charge' from dcb legal, dated February 2024, but ignored it as it looked to be a scam.

I have submitted an appeal via MCOL, as advised by this forum, and am now trying to construct my defense, which I believe needs to be submitted by 4pm on Monday 1st July.

The alleged contravention occurred on 13/06/2023. My father had passed away just over a week prior and I was also working away from home and generally not spending any consistent amount of time at home in general. Many things fell by the wayside and I do not recollect receiving any PC, however, I live in flats with a communal post box, which gets cleared out form time to time, so fear they may have ended up discarded, if anything was ever sent.

I cannot say with sureity that the letters didn't arrive, so would it be fair to say that my main defence should be the non recollection of events due to large the passage of time since the alleged contravention occurred?

Is there any merit in mentioning no recollection of receiving any fine etc due to it being a very difficult time in life and not spending much time at home?

I also cannot remember the specifics of any carpark that I may have entered into, regarding signage etc, although I am usually pretty vigilant with these things.

So far, I have drafted this and would be really grateul for some constructive feedback:

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 13/06/2023 as alleged. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant does not even know from the POC what the alleged ‘Breach of The Terms and Conditions’ is. The Defendant has little recollection of the events, considering this occurred almost three years ago and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant. The Claimant is required to provide strict proof of all their allegations. The Defendant denies the claim on the basis that no evidence of a contravention has occurred. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land), and no damages were incurred whatsoever. Moreover, given the passage of almost three years, and the lack of specific details in the inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a complete defence.

I also wondered if Highview have mislead the courts in any way like Smart Parking, and if so, should I add that here?

Thanks so much for all the help this forum has provided already!

Gr1pr

You haven't appealed on MCOL, presumably you completed the AOS stage online on MCOL , nothing else

Its not a fine, never was, its an invoice pcn from a private parking company

Issue date is 28th April, so the defence deadline would be 4pm, 33 days later , 31st May, except not on a weekend, so 4pm next Monday 1st June ( not July. )

Highview Parking ( Group Nexus. ) via DCB LEGAL, no breach pleaded in the POC so use the Chan and Akande defence template

If you were definitely not the driver, add the following to the end of paragraph 2

But not the driver

Le_Kirk

I have submitted an appeal via MCOL, as advised by this forum, and am now trying to construct my defense, which I believe needs to be submitted by 4pm on Monday 1st July.

What do you mean by this? Do you perhaps mean you have completed the AoS?

With an issue date of 28/04/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 17/05/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 01/06/26

Moco_2

Thanks both for such speedy responses.

Yes, apologies that was a typo, I meant June and yes I did complete the AoS.

Is this the Chan and Akande defence template you mean?

3. With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would
indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal
judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande,HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts
upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'."

Should that be inserted as a new paragraph, ie 3.1, in addition to what I have already written or is it a strong enough defence to not need any additional?

Thanks again

Le_Kirk

That is the correct wording of Chan & Akande and is Paragraph 3 to be inserted into the defence template making 10 paragraphs in total. Don't forget to adjust the ending of paragraph 2.

Coupon-mad

I'd add a new paragraph 3.1 copied from the Smart Parking defence by @Meltof where it talks about the POFA and the untruth by the solicitor about keeper liability.

This is because in 2023 Highview didn't use POFA compliant notices to keeper, so they know full well they could NEVER hold keepers liable.

Moco_2

Thanks @Le_Kirk.

With regards to the ending of Paragraph 2, are you referring to adding But not the driver ?

If so, I cannot be completely sure that I wasn't driving, so I imagine it's probably best to leave that out?

Thanks also @Coupon-mad. Is this the paragraph you mean?

3. The Defendant is unable to recall who may have been driving on an unremarkable date and unspecified time and no evidence has been produced. There can be no 'keeper liability' in this case. Research has proved that this Claimant has never used the provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 and they know, or should know, that they cannot hold registered keepers liable.

I have also edited my original paragraph 3, (shown below), but is it now necessary as the other points seem so robust, or should I combine it with meltof's paragraph?

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 has little recollection of the events, considering this occurred almost three years ago and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper. 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.

Coupon-mad

Yes combine those two.

1505grandad

" The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 23/06/2020, as alleged"

Is that the correct date?

Gr1pr

If you dont actually KNOW for sure that you weren't driving, then yes leave out , but not the driver in paragraph 2

Instead you could add the part about not knowing who was driving to the end of paragraph 2, making it a bit longer, INSTEAD OF keeping it in your bespoke paragraph 3

Edit that date too, it doesn't match the POC

Moco_2

Thanks all, I shall make those adjustments as suggested.

Your help is very much appreciated so massive thanks once again