DCB Legal Draft Defence Statement

Mquamo

Hi,

My wife has received a Claim Form for a parking ticket she was unaware of. We've been onto Moneyclaim.gov.uk and acknowledged receipt, as per the advice in the Newbies section. With the help of ChatGPT we've drafted a defence and hoping someone can review prior to formal submission.

History of the parking ticket:

The claim is from 28/08/2022 for 'Overstayed Free Time'.

We moved home early 2023, so the first letter we received was to our new address from DCB Legal on the 30th March 2026.

My wife emailed DCB Legal on 3rd April 2026, stating she did not recall the incident and requested-

1. High-resolution, time-stamped photographs of the vehicle entering and exiting the site.

2. Evidence of the signage in place at the time of the alleged incident.

3. A breakdown of the £170 charge, as the addition of £70 "debt recovery

costs" is contested as an abuse of process.

She also asked 'Please place this case on hold for 30 days while

this evidence is provided as per the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.'

She received an acknowledgement email from DCB Legal the same day.

We heard nothing back.

She followed up with an email n the 27th April 2026 requesting DCB Legal respond to her original email from 3rd April.

Again she received an acknowledgment of receipt email on the same day.

We heard nothing until 29th June 2026 when we received the Claim Form through the post. 

Here's our draft defence:

DEFENCE

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. It is denied that a contract was entered into, that any contractual terms were breached, or that the Defendant has any liability to the Claimant.

Preliminary: Breach of Pre-Action Protocol and Conduct of the Claimant.

The Claimant has acted in flagrant breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. On 3rd April 2026, following a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal, the Defendant requested essential evidence, including time-stamped photographs of the alleged incident, proof of signage from August 2022, and a breakdown of the disproportionate charges. The Defendant explicitly requested a 30-day hold to allow for this evidence to be provided, as permitted under the Protocol.

The Claimant’s legal representatives acknowledged this request on 3rd April 2026, and a follow-up request on 27th April 2026, but completely ignored both. Instead of providing the evidence required to narrow the issues, the Claimant rushed to issue court proceedings on 29th June 2026. The Court is invited to look unfavourably upon the Claimant's unreasonable conduct and to apply sanctions regarding costs under CPR 44.11.

No Keeper Liability (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012).

The alleged incident occurred on 28th August 2022. The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver at the time, nor does the Defendant recall who was driving nearly four years ago. The Defendant changed residential address in early 2023.

To transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper, the Claimant must strictly comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA"). Specifically, if no ticket was left on the windscreen, a compliant Notice to Keeper must be served within 14 days of the alleged incident.

The Defendant maintains that no compliant Notice to Keeper was received within the statutory window, nor has any proof of service or compliance been provided despite formal requests. As the Claimant has failed to satisfy the strict requirements of PoFA, they cannot hold the Defendant liable as the Keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full PoFA compliance.

Abuse of Process: Disproportionate Debt Recovery Fees.

The Claim includes an additional £70 described as "debt recovery costs" or similar, inflating the claim beyond the principal parking charge. The original parking charge is already capped under the industry Code of Practice to cover operational costs, including debt collection tracking.

The addition of arbitrary fees is an attempt at double recovery and artificially inflating a small claim. This practice has been extensively condemned by the courts as an abuse of process. The Defendant cites ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] and the mass striking out of identical claims in various county courts (e.g., Excel Parking Services v Wilkinson). The Court is invited to strike out the entire claim on the grounds of abuse of process.

Vague Particulars of Claim / Denial of Contract.

The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are vague, generic, and constitute "bare pleadings." They fail to outline the specific terms of the contract allegedly breached or show how the sum claimed has been calculated.

The Defendant denies that clear, legible, and prominent signage was displayed at the location in August 2022 sufficient to form a binding contract. Because the Claimant ignored pre-action requests, no evidence of signage or an overstay has been produced. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the exact duration of the stay, the specific terms displayed, and their legal standing (contractual authority) to issue claims at the location.

Conclusion.

In light of the above, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court to dismiss this unmeritorious and procedurally non-compliant claim.

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.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

Gr1pr

Name the private parking company claimant involved

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

Bin the AI defence

Use the defence template thread in announcements near the top of the forum by coupon mad instead

Mquamo

Thanks for the response.

Claimant is Smart Parking Limited

Issue date 25 Jun 2026.

So this should be our defence?

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 LBC. 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.

The allegation(s) are vague 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 has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

On 3rd April 2026, following a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal, the Defendant requested essential evidence, including time-stamped photographs of the alleged incident, proof of signage from August 2022, and a breakdown of the disproportionate charges. The Defendant explicitly requested a 30-day hold to allow for this evidence to be provided, as permitted under the Protocol.

The Claimant’s legal representatives acknowledged this request on 3rd April 2026, and a follow-up request on 27th April 2026, but completely ignored both. Instead of providing the evidence required to narrow the issues, the Claimant rushed to issue court proceedings on 29th June 2026. The Court is invited to look unfavourably upon the Claimant's unreasonable conduct and to apply sanctions regarding costs under CPR 44.11.

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 Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

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).

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 obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from Beavis.

Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge 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 paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) 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.

The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). 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'.

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 specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

Gr1pr

We usually recommend that people use the meltof defence template posted on April 12th for old Smart Parking cases

If the POC mentions Pofa2012 and keeper liability, then it needs addressing as seen in the meltof defence because they didn't use Pofa2012 liability until 2025, so no keeper liability

Also , We only want to see the paragraphs that you altered or added, not the rest of the unchanged template , at least 8 paragraphs are standard and aren't altered at all

Coupon-mad

There is a current tsunami of Smart Parking claims.

So much so, that I now have copy & paste advice ready AND a bespoke defence:

Just click on the username @Meltof

Copy their version of a Smart Parking final defence posted on April 12th. Obviously, as they didn't use the POFA until 2025, theres no 'keeper liability' possible with Smart's claims for old PCNs.


These claims are all the same (none go to hearings) and the sheer numbers of Smart Parking claim threads - about half a dozen new ones EVERY DAY here - have driven us regulars a bit mad in recent months with this batch!

Literally read any Smart thread…

Follow the 8 steps in the Template Defence thread which also covers Mediation.

It'll be discontinued just before the hearing fee falls due in the Autumn/Winter.

Read @Umkomaas' thread of over 900 examples …and counting! Yours will end up there.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 25/06/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 14/07/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 28/07/26

Did you complete the AoS before 14/07/26

Mquamo

Yes, i followed the 5 day rule.

I've copy and pasted the meltof defence from the 12th April, as directed.

See what happens next.

Thanks all for the help and advice