Claim form from DCB Legal

Bl0168

I was hoping for advice regarding a claim I have from DCB legal for Euro car parks.

They are claiming for us overstaying the maximum time period allowed (3 hours free parking, we stayed 3 hr 27 min). Unfortunately we did not buy anything from the stores there at the time but we did end up buying curtains and a sofa from the stores there at a later date (we spent too long deciding on what to buy). I initially appealed this fine using my name but did not identify who the driver of the car is. The thing is that they have named me as the defendant whereas I am neither the driver or registered keeper of the car.

I have read the template defense but am a bit confused, I have read that we should not respond within 5 days and that we should not do it through the moneyclaim.gov website? Is this the case or am I just confused?

Are you able to provide any advise on how I should go forward?

I am guessing that I should try to put that I am neither the driver nor registered keeper in the defense on top of the suitable paragraphs in the template?

Thanks in advance

Gr1pr

You seem to be VERY confused

Yes use MCOL

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

Also post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first

definitely was NOT a fine, just an invoice

there is no S in DEFENCE

Bl0168

The issue date is on the 13/10 2026. I will proceed using MCOL, though still don't fully understand the waiting 5 days

Thanks for the help.

Gr1pr

With an Issue date of 13th Oct, they allow 5 days before the service date. ( today. ) , that then allows you a further 14 days to submit a defence, so 19 days, which can be extended by a further 14 days by completing the AOS stage online, making a total of 33 days, unless its on a weekend or Bank Holiday

So complete the AOS stage, then use the defence template in announcements

Bl0168

I have drafted up a defence, pretty much as per the template apart from stating I am either the driver or keeper of the vehicle. Also a bit of details in paragraph 3.

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 is neither the driver or registered keeper of the vehicle.

3. In regards to the alleged breach of contract, an appeal was made due to the fact we were customers of the retail park and had been using that time to consider large purchases which we made at a later date. We have evidence of the quote obtained on that date as well as the invoice of our purchase.

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))'.

Coupon-mad

"and is neither the driver or registered keeper of the vehicle."

How come they gave your details then? You must expand on that, if it is true that on the material date you were neither.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 13/10/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 01/11/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 16/11/26

This is on the claim form: -

You must send or submit either the completed acknowledgment of service form or a defence to the court within 14 days of the date of service. If you send or submit the acknowledgment of service you must send or submit a defence to the court to arrive no later than 28 days from the date of service. Date of service is five days after date of issue.

I have searched and researched and there seems to be no penalty for completing AoS before the 14 days after date of service

If the below is true, how/why did you receive the claim form? Is it a lease/hire car?

The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and is neither the driver or registered keeper of the vehicle.

1505grandad

OP:-

"I initially appealed this fine using my name but did not identify who the driver of the car is. The thing is that they have named me as the defendant whereas I am neither the driver or registered keeper of the car."

Le_Kirk

Who received the N1SDT claim form? This should go to the registered keeper.