money claim issued by DCB Legal

disgruntled555

Hi All,

I'm looking for some advice please. I've been issued with a claim for an unpaid parking charge. The claimant is Parking Eye and their legal representative is DCB Legal.

TBH, I don't really understand why they are still pursuing this as it relates to an incident from 21/4/2023.

The vehicle to which the PCN relates was a lease car and I was the named hirer. I received a standard PCN (notice to keeper), so have responded on numerous occasions to confirm that I have no liability in this matter as Parking Eye failed to meet the requirements of schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to supply the required 'notice to hirer' and failure to supply the additional documents mandated under section 14 (2) 9a) of the Act.

As I understand things, they cannot transfer liability from the driver at the time to me, the hirer. I did not confirm the identity of the driver.

I would apprecate some guidance on what to enter on the claim form and whether I should also counterclaim. This has caused stress and inconvenience and it has taken a good deal of my time to research and defend myself from the continued harrassment from DCB Legal.

Many thanks in advance.

Gr1pr

Parking Eye had 6 years from the incident date to issue a Money Claim for an unpaid Invoice

You don't have any legal basis for a counter claim, so bin that notion

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

You will probably be using the Chan and Akande defence template in announcements near the top of the forum, with a suitable change to the ending to paragraph 2

Do not fill in ANY paperwork, you will be using MCOL

disgruntled555

Thanks Gr1pr. The issue date is 7th September 2026. I received it by post on 12th.

disgruntled555

AOS now submitted.

Gr1pr

Now use the Chan and Akande defence template

disgruntled555

So I don't need to mention their failure to send the notice to hirer and the required documents under POFA, just use the standard defence?

Gr1pr

Let's see your proposal for the extra paragraph, then people here can advise you of any changes, or additions, or whether to add it anyway !

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 07/09/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 12/10/26

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82143233#Comment_82143233

Add it to the end of para 2 instead of the bit about being the registered keeper.

disgruntled555

Apologies, I've been away on business.

Draft defence below.

Paragraph 9 refers to the the keeper, but I was the lessee. Therefore, shoudl I change 'keeper' to 'lessee' or simply remove this paragraph please ?

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 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.

2. 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 lessee.

3. The POC claims the Defendant is pursued as 3. The Driver, or 4. The Keeper. The Defendant was the registered lessee, and not the keeper, and has no liability in this matter as the Claimant failed to meet the requirements of Sch2 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to supply the required 'notice to hirer' and failure to supply the additional documents mandated under s14 (2) 9a) of the Act. The Claimant therefore cannot transfer liability from the driver at the time to the Defendent.

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 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.

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).

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

7. 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.

8. 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'.

9. 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.

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)(dg))'.

Gr1pr

Looks OK to me, as is ( as lessee. )