DCB Legal, UKPC court claim, DEFENDED

Ghoci

Hi All,

Thank you so much for all your efforts on this forum.

I have already stated that I'm going to despute all charges on MCOL and I have until 14/10/2026 to submit a defence against the claim below.

I'm planning to submit the 10 points defence in the 2nd post of the pinned Template defence suggestion thread "the one that starts with: The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7…etc"

I'd appreciate some help with my third point please. I'm planning to submit the third point as follows:

"3- It is denied that the Claimant's signage was prominent, clear, or legible enough to form a binding contract. The terms and the parking charge amount were displayed in a small font that was difficult to read from a distance. Furthermore, the incident occurred in the evening under poor or absent lighting conditions, rendering the small print completely illegible to a motorist. For a contract to be formed, terms must be prominent and transparent, as established by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis and the standard set in Lord Denning’s "Red Hand Rule" (Spurling v Bradshaw). Because the core terms were hidden in small print and obscured by the darkness, there was no mutual agreement, no "meeting of the minds," and therefore no contract was ever entered into by the driver."

Any suggestions?

sheenas

I have successfully defended a case on poor signage before. In my case the signs were obscured by commercial bins. I took photos and shortly after my successful defence they move the bin. So if you have photo's etc then that would strengthen your case.

Gr1pr

No evidence is submitted with a defence

Delete the double air quotes, " ( not allowed on MCOL but I counted 4 ) use single ones, ' instead

You must deny the POC, the POC are based on an alleged overstay, so refute the allegation

The POC is a common generic POC seen in hundreds of DCB LEGAL cases, so have a look at what other recent cases have said in their paragraph 3

And

Decide on your short , concise ending to paragraph 2

Ghoci

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82161067#Comment_82161067

Thank you for your answer.

The problem is, I did overstay by about 15 mins but I genuinely didn't know at the time that there was a £100 fine. idk how to refute the overstaying without lying.

My point 2 is going to be:

"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 and driver."

Gr1pr

There was no fine, just an invoice for £100 for the alleged breach of the parking contract on that private property

You did not deliberately overstay, you only found out after the fact, so you may know now but had no idea what any time constraints were at the time of the incident

Nobody is telling you to lie , but to look at what other people have used for their paragraph 3 in similar situations

You paragraph 2 is OK, except it has double air quotes in it , despite me warning you that " are not allowed on MCOL

Gr1pr

More like the following

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 keeper and driver.

3 The Claimant is required to prove the contractual terms allegedly displayed at the site on the material date, including the maximum permitted stay, the circumstances in which a charge would become payable, and the adequacy and prominence of the signs. The Defendant does not admit that the Claimant’s signage created a sufficiently clear and enforceable contract on the terms alleged.

Ghoci

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82161120#Comment_82161120

Thanks once again mate.

The " in my second post were just for use here within the forum, I won't be posting them on MCOL as per your advice.

I have revised my 3rd point to the following:

3- It is denied that the Claimant's signage was prominent, clear, or legible enough to form a binding contract. The terms and the parking charge amount were displayed in a small font that was difficult to read from a distance. Furthermore, the incident occurred in the evening under poor or absent lighting conditions, rendering the small print completely illegible to a motorist. Consequently, the Defendant had no knowledge of any applicable time constraints at the material time of the incident, nor did they deliberately overstay; this was only discovered retrospectively after the fact. For a contract to be formed, terms must be prominent and transparent, as established by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis and the standard set in Lord Denning’s 'Red Hand Rule' (Spurling v Bradshaw). Because the core terms were hidden in small print, obscured by the darkness, and entirely unknown to the driver at the time, there was no mutual agreement, no 'meeting of the minds,' and therefore no contract was ever entered into by the driver.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine.

Doesn't matter what you put really, because there will be no hearing.

🙂

Ghoci

Got really lucky with this one.. my 33 days period officially expired last Saturday.

I managed to get my defence in yesterday before the claimant asks for a summary judgement.

This is what my MCOL portal shows atm.

Gr1pr

The deadline is never on a weekend or bank holiday, so 4pm yesterday was the actual deadline, not Saturday

Ghoci

That makes me 7 minutes & 36 seconds late!