UKPC/DCB claim - mediation stage

nc11

In the process of defending a DCB legal claim. alleged offence was not parking within a bay/space, as a visitor (with a pass) in UKPC managed estate. date of issue 12/5/26, AOS filed 22/5/26.

main defence is 2-fold: NtK was sent 2 days after the PCN, and the signage on the day was old and hardly readable, now replaced with new clear signs.

before submitting my defence on MCOL, I'm considering an *invitation to reconsider* letter to DCB. that would be words to the effect of I've got evidence that their client changed the signs since the PCN, practically admitting that the old ones were inappropriate, but to save their embarrassment in court, I'm willing to waive costs if they discontinue the claim…

Has anyone tried that before?

Gr1pr

Personally, I think that you are wasting your time even thinking about it instead of just defending the case as normal, same as everyone else on here has to do, not least because its merely a roboclaim with a defence deadline and DCB Legal will let it time out whilst you are waiting for a reply

Ukpc wont attend court, neither will DCB LEGAL, even if they paid for a hearing, which they won't, so there wont be a hearing and I have no idea why you think that it will end up in court ( they discontinue the case just before the hearing fee is due. , no payment equals NO court hearing )

Just use the template defence in announcements near the top of the forum, adapting the end of paragraph 2 and refuting the POC in paragraph 3, after studying half a dozen UKPC claims over the last 6 months

nc11

thank you. the reason I consider it is that dcb already offered me a £100 “settlement” directly prior to the claim. it might as well be a standard ‘roboclaim’ at this point, but I think they already know their case is weak hence the offer, and this might just push it over the line. It won’t be instead of preparing the defense which is pretty much done.

I will have a few more days to submit after the 14 days I intend to give them within this letter.

patient_dream

I agree with Gr1pr above

The DISCOUNT stage from DCBL simply means you play the game and the answer is NO. UKPV/DCBL claims are a farce and they are now "en route" to a discontinuation

nc11

defence (redacted) draft below. comments and feedback welcome.

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 of vehicle [VEHICLE REGISTRATION] on [DATE OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION] was in breach of any clearly communicated contractual term. It is further denied that this Claimant — understood to operate as agent/licensee of the landowner — has standing to sue or to form contracts in its own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming keeper liability, which is entirely unclear from the boilerplate Particulars of Claim.

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'. 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 letter before claim. 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. In Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. [CHAN CASE REFERENCE], 15 August 2023), HHJ Murch held that particulars of claim which fail to set out the conduct amounting to the breach disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

2. The allegations are denied 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 admits only that they were the registered keeper of vehicle [VEHICLE REGISTRATION] on [DATE OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION]. The Defendant does not admit, and requires the Claimant to prove, that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant will not assist the Claimant in identifying the driver. The Defendant further avers that the Notice to Keeper produced by the Claimant was dated [DATE OF NTK], just two days after the alleged contravention — a point addressed fully in paragraph 9 below.

3. The Claimant states that the driver of [VEHICLE REGISTRATION] was 'not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space' at the site on [DATE OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION] at [TIME OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION]. The Defendant notes the following facts: (a) the driver was visiting a resident of the site who holds a valid resident's parking permit, which was displayed on the vehicle at the time; (b) no visitor parking spaces were available at the site at the time of the visit; (c) the driver parked as she did solely because no suitable alternative space was available, not to abuse the parking scheme or cause obstruction; (d) no evidence has been produced that any other vehicle, resident, or user was obstructed or inconvenienced. The Defendant further notes that since the alleged date, the Defendant visited the site in [DATE OF DEFENDANT'S SITE VISIT] and obtained photographic evidence showing that the signage currently in place is materially different in design, colour, and format from the signage visible in Google Street View imagery from [DATE OF STREET VIEW IMAGERY] and in the Claimant's own sign photograph. The Claimant has produced no dated installation records to show what signage was in place on [DATE OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION]. A witness statement from the driver confirms she observed only the older-design signs on the day, and that no sign prominently communicated the term now relied upon. Additionally, at least one sign at the site is and was substantially obscured by overgrown vegetation, positioned behind a large hedge and invisible to any driver manoeuvring within the car park.

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 Schedule 2 (examples 6, 10, 14, and 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing and good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear and unfair terms and notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs showing what signage was in place on [DATE OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION].

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). The Claimant has produced a Letter of Authority in heavily redacted form. A redacted document does not discharge the burden of proving authority. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the identity of the landowner of the site on [DATE OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION] and of an unredacted copy of the relevant contractual provision.

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 obligations. None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor and changed signs, and covert surveillance, and is fully distinguished from Beavis. A charge of £100 escalating to over £262 against the keeper of a vehicle making an authorised visit to a resident with a valid permit displayed, in circumstances where no visitor space was available, serves no legitimate interest capable of justifying enforcement.

7. Attention is drawn to: (i) paragraphs 98, 100, 193, and 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a large 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 paragraphs 419–428 (his judgment later ratified by the Court of Appeal) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC 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. 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 high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control, 'indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Schedule 4 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 PoFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy. Further, the Claimant's own evidence bundle shows the document relied upon as the Notice to Keeper is dated [DATE OF NTK], only two days after the alleged contravention of [DATE OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION]. Schedule 4, paragraph 8 requires that where a notice is first given to the driver, any subsequent Notice to Keeper must be served no earlier than 28 days after the contravention. The Defendant therefore avers that keeper liability has not been lawfully established. The Claimant is put to strict proof of: (a) whether a notice to driver was affixed or given at the time; (b) the date, form, and content of every notice relied upon; and (c) full compliance with the mandatory wording and timing requirements of Schedule 4.

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)(g))'. The Defendant's specific grounds of unreasonable conduct include: the pursuit of a claim without adequate evidence of contemporaneous signage; the inflation of the claim with irrecoverable sums; and the reliance on a Notice to Keeper served outside the statutory PoFA window. Furthermore, the Defendant submitted a Subject Access Request to the Claimant under Article 15 UK GDPR. The response was incomplete, omitting DVLA query logs, internal case notes, data-sharing records, and sign installation records for the site. The Defendant reserves the right to rely on this incompleteness at trial and invites the court to draw appropriate inferences.

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.

Signed: ___________________________

Full name: [YOUR FULL NAME]

Date: ___________________________

Coupon-mad

I don't understand why a couple of people are today adding an unnecessary statement of truth?

Obviously not needed in MCOL, otherwise

• the Template Defence would include it, which it doesn't, and
• how would ordinary litigant-in-person Defendants know to add it, and
• The SoT is covered already by the MCOL tick boxes, it's implied by you deciding to defend & using the MCOL system.

This whole section (below) looks muddled. There's no reason to think there was a windscreen PCN anyway, is there?

"The Claimant is put to strict proof of: (a) whether a notice to driver was affixed or given at the time"

And you don't need that added numberless paragraph at the start. That's from a very old version.

1505grandad

Also the "Chan" case is included but then the actual "breach" is quoted in another para.

nc11

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82018056#Comment_82018056

understood - will remove the SoT and the first para entirely.

there wasn't any windscreen PCN, guess it was ANPR, but still the timing of the NtK is wrong and should be in my favour, right? I'll re-word it and share..

nc11

Thank you, yes the breach is mentioned in the claim form clearly so the chan strike-out argument doesn't hold. shall I remove it?

Gr1pr

Correct, if any actual alleged breach is specified, the Chan and Akande defence arguments are in the bin

nc11

para 9 revised completely and include 3 arguments around PoFA:

…. This is an ANPR-only case and the Claimant must therefore establish keeper liability under Schedule 4, paragraph 9, which requires the Notice to Keeper ('NtK') to contain all prescribed information set out in paragraph 9(2)(a)-(i).

The Defendant has reviewed the NtK dated [DATE OF NTK] and identifies the following specific deficiencies.

First, paragraph 9(2)(c) requires the NtK to describe how the parking requirement was brought to the driver's attention; the NtK merely asserts that terms "were clearly and prominently displayed" without describing the signage, its position, or its wording. A bare assertion is not a statutory description.

Second, paragraph 9(2)(d) requires the NtK to state the total unpaid amount as it stood at a specified time no later than the day before the notice was sent; the NtK states both £100 and £60 without specifying a time-stamped unpaid amount, rendering the figure ambiguous and non-compliant.

Third, paragraph 9(2)(f) requires the keeper to be warned that after 28 days beginning on the day after the NtK is given, the creditor may recover the charge from the keeper; the NtK instead states the 28-day period runs from the day after this Parking Charge is given, conflating the contravention date with the NtK date and misdirecting the keeper as to their actual deadline.

Any one of these deficiencies is sufficient to mean that keeper liability was never lawfully transferred to the Defendant under Schedule 4. The Claimant is put to strict proof that all prescribed requirements were met.