Can someone please review my defence against DCB Legal please?

DisoBear

Hi all, first and foremost what a great forum, there is so much information, advice and guidance here. Thank you for all your work.

I have received a N1 SDT for a parking breach incurred by another driver in my vehicle and Parking Eye are now chasing me as the owner as they don't know the identity of the driver. I intend to defend my case, following all your advice and suggested wording I have formulated my defence as detailed below however, I'm unsure whether or not I have captured what I need to and not certain if i need to include "The facts known to the Defendant" as well as my defence. I would be grateful if someone would be kind enough to look over my attempt of a defence, specifically item 3 in my defence just to make sure I haven't made any rookie errors, as I am very much a rookie in this particular discipline. TBH any advice and support would be very much appreciated.

I have followed the advice and registered on Money Claim Online and have selected the activity to dispute the action affording myself the additional 14 days (total 28 days), I have until 20/10/2026 to submit my defence.

N1.jpeg

My defence is as follows -

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 keeper.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Information Act 2012 states the notice must explicitly state specific details, including the vehicle, relevant land, parking period, unpaid amount, creditor details, and warnings about keeper recovery rights. The notice neither contained the unpaid amount or the required warning about keeper recovery rights. Therefore, keeper liability cannot transfer. Additionally under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4 defendant is not required to provide the name of the driver to the claimant.

The Defendant confirms that they were the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence, Liability is denied. The Defendant was not present, did not park the vehicle, and has no personal knowledge of the alleged parking event. The Defendant is therefore reduced to responding based on the limited and unclear information supplied by the Claimant.

3.The defendant alerted the fine to the person present at the time of the alleged offence, this person submitted an appeal to Parking Eye within the specified time limits, no response was received from them. Parking Eye have continued to pursue the defendant for parking charges and any associated costs therefore, it is assumed by the defendant that Parking Eye refused the appeal.

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', poor signs and covert surveillance, 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))'.

The facts known to the Defendant:

The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but not the driver.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Information Act 2012 states the notice must explicitly state specific details, including the vehicle, relevant land, parking period, unpaid amount, creditor details, and warnings about keeper recovery rights. The notice did not specify the unpaid amount therefore, keeper liability cannot transfer. Additionally under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4 the defendant is not required to provide the name of the driver to the claimant.

The Defendant confirms that they were the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence, Liability is denied. The Defendant was not present, did not park the vehicle, and has no personal knowledge of the alleged parking event. The Defendant is therefore reduced to responding based on the limited and unclear information supplied by the Claimant.

The allegation appears to relate to a ANPR car park at Macclesfield Hospital (rear entrance Public) on 26 June 2023. The defendant alerted the fine to the person present at the time of the alleged offence, this person submitted an appeal, the driver holds the appeal reference number, to Parking Eye and no response was received from them.

The Particulars plead driver liability and keeper liability as alternatives, but do not properly identify the facts said to support either route. The Claimant has not pleaded how it allegedly knows the Defendant was the driver, nor has it pleaded the facts necessary to establish keeper liability.

The sum of £140 is pleaded as a combination of a Parking Charge and damages, but no breakdown is provided. The Defendant denies that any additional sum above the original parking charge is recoverable, particularly from a registered keeper.

The Claimant is put to strict proof of the legal basis, contractual basis and calculation of the sum claimed. No Parking Eye sign allowed for an added debt recovery or administrative fee and it obviously does not cost the Claimant an extortionate sum of £100 to send a Letter before Claim to pursue alleged debts.  Even if it did cost the Claimant that ludicrously disproportionate sum, it is not on the contract (sign) and offends against the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  Thus the false 'damages' are merely to enrich the legal firm and are not recoverable.

James_Poisson

They are not chasing you as "owner" there is no register of owners, and what on earth is "Schedule 4 of the Protection of Information Act 2012" I didn't go any further sorry!

Gr1pr

Far too long and paragraph 2 is repetitive , plus no alleged offence occurred, alleged breach, not offence

Add the last sub paragraph in paragraph 2 to the end of paragraph 2 after Registered Keeper, adjusting the wording to suit

Make paragraph 3 and a 3.1 give concise information, refuting the POC

THEN Post your adjusted paragraphs 2 & 3 below for critique ( do not post the other 8 unchanged template paragraphs, p1 and p4 to p10. )

If this is Parking Eye and DCB LEGAL, does the POC actually specify a breach ? Usually it does not, meaning that the Chan and Akande paragraph 3 should be used

Ps, they are chasing you as Registered Keeper, not owner

1505grandad

And it most definitely is NOT a fine (that word will never appear in any of their comms.) - only a speculative invoice for a supposed breach which will probably not actually be pleaded.

DisoBear

Thank you everyone, I will most certainly make the adjustments you have suggested and re post just the amended paras for critique. Do I need to include "facts known to defendant" or do I just not bother. Thanks again for your support.

Gr1pr

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82168554#Comment_82168554

Depends on what the POC says, so check the POC

Coupon-mad

Do I need to include "facts known to defendant"

No, you should already know from the Template defence thread what para 3 looks like for a bog standard DCB Legal ParkingEye claim. I specially mention them (and Group Nexus) in the first post on the Template Defence thread and twice there, I link the para 3 to use gor all such claims where no actual contract term or breach is specified.

We (and you, honestly!)) really don't need individual threads about these ones. There's nothing to draft or check because you are copying the Chan & Akande version, like everyone else with an exact same claim.

No case is different.

No words need drafting.

They all end up discontinued.

We need a Group thread to help everyone in one place, let newbies help each other and save our sanity.

Le_Kirk

You have redacted the date of issue so we cannot give you your deadlines for AoS or defence; no matter, just use the Chan & Akande defence linked in the template defence thread and as referenced by @Coupon-mad above.

Gr1pr

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82168786#Comment_82168786

One here now

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6686569/cpp-parking-eye-cel-dcb-legal-group-thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6686569/cpp-parking-eye-cel-dcb-legal-group-thread#latest

DisoBear

Thank you everyone for your advice and support and for taking the time to help me, I am incredibly grateful. I have remained faithful to the original template and included the Chan & Akande defence as advised by @Coupon-mad.

@Le_Kirk, the date of issue for the N1 is 18/09/2026, i have already registered with MCOL and extended to 28 days. I have calculated my defence deadline as Tuesday 20/10/2026. I will let you know how it goes 🤞. Thanks again everyone

Le_Kirk

You are correct, with an issue date of 18/09/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 21/10/26