DCB LEGAL CLAIM STOCKLEY PARK

Ismaiel_c

Hi all received another court claim, issue date 6th July 26

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 06/07/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 25/07/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 10/08/26

Find the defence template and use the defence for when the breach is not pleaded, which will include Chan & Akande.

Coupon-mad

Yep and it's linked specially (twice) in the Template Defence thread. Nothing for you to write or add.

Ismaiel_c

AOS submitted today ( 21/07/2026 at 19:05:19)

Ismaiel_c

I have a picture of registering my vehicle for 1 day parking

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82083240#Comment_82083240

But the claim hasn't pleaded that you didn't, so you aren't responding to allegations not made. They failed to plead a breach.

However - using the Chan and Akande version of defence - you could swap round the order of paras 8 & 9 and change para 10 to this instead of the stuff about costs, so 8,9,10 reads:

8. 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 also specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed.

9. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators. 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'.

10. It is worth the judge noting that In July 2026 the UK consumer protection law Regulator - the Competition and Markets Authority ('the CMA') - has weighed in. The CMA has just published open letters to the parking industry and government on what they believe are actions that potentially breach consumer law:

Open letter to private parking operators

10.1. Paragraph 28 requires operators to ensure that all substantive correspondence sent to motorists directs them to Codes of Practice and any other material information which would allow consumers to make better informed decisions regarding a PC. 'Substantive correspondence' includes the PC notice, which in the extant case fails to direct the consumer to the Joint Code and fails to properly explain the allegation or describe the circumstances in which the requirement to pay the PC arose. The CMA consider that this misleading omission is unfair conduct: a failure to provide material information ref section 227(2) of the Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Act 2024.

10.1.2. This is equally true of the woeful POC which fails to particularise the alleged breach or the term relied upon. The Defendant holds evidence of registering the vehicle for a full day parking session at this site, so it was authorised. The Defendant has no real idea why the PC was issued and cannot be expected to guess or respond to allegations that are not in the Statement of Case.

(Tell us if all that fits on MCOL once you have used the Chan and Akande defence (linked twice in the Template Defence thread) and swapped 8 & 9 round as above and replaced para 10 as shown).

Ismaiel_c

"...The Defendant, recalls the event that he parked at The Arena at Stockley Park , He authorised his parking session on the tablets provided at the Travelodge Hotel, he has proof of his parking session was confirmed, He was the driver but not the registered keeper so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

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'."

Coupon-mad

"The Defendant, recalls the event that he parked… 
He was the driver but not the registered keeper so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant."

Errrr… no.

You've just ruined that whole argument!

Ismaiel_c

so i need to keep paragraph 3 short to keep a strong argument on Chan & Akande

Sorry i find these things diffcult

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82086497#Comment_82086497

Yes, which is why I already covered your bit, in 10.1.2 that I posted earlier! Go back and read my instructions above to the letter and do exactly what I said. I wrote that for you and I did tell you para 3 is just Chan & Akande.

Ismaiel_c

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82086506#Comment_82086506

"…The Defendant, recalls the event that he parked at The Arena at Stockley Park, and admitting that they were the driver but not the registered keeper, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

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'."