DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 129253--------------------------------------------------
Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: Tarli
Date: September 1, 2026, 6:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, I’m looking for advice on a Parking Eye charge from
March 2022 that has now reached the HM Courts & Tribunals
Service stage.
My partner took our son to a swimming lesson at a Holiday Inn.
The car is registered to me. The car park had recently started
being managed by Parking Eye and users had to enter their
registration at reception. My partner believes she did this, but
may have entered one character incorrectly. Parking Eye issued a
£100 charge, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.
I challenged it at the time through the swimming lesson
provider, who escalated it to Holiday Inn. I provided proof that
we were using the facilities and received WhatsApp confirmation
from the swim provider saying the charge had been cancelled, so
I believed the matter was closed.
In June 2023, I received a DCBL debt recovery letter for £170. I
told them the charge had already been disputed and cancelled,
and provided evidence, but they said they were only acting for
debt recovery and would not review the evidence or consider an
appeal. I also appealed directly to Parking Eye, but they said
there was no appeal on their file. My assumption is that Holiday
Inn may have told the swim company it would be cancelled but did
not action it with Parking Eye. The hotel has since closed to
the public, so I cannot contact them directly.
From September 2024, I started receiving correspondence from DCB
Legal, along with further calls and letters from DCBL. I
continued to engage and explain my position, but found the
contact intimidating and stressful. I also made clear that both
my partner and I suffer from stress and anxiety, and that the
ongoing contact was having a significant impact on us, which
made no difference to their approach.
On 14 July 2026, DCB Legal sent a Letter of Claim. I responded
within the 30-day period, confirmed I would not be paying
because I do not consider myself liable, and explained that I
was engaging so there could be no suggestion I was ignoring the
matter.
I have now received HMCTS papers dated 26 August 2026. The
claimant is Parking Eye, with DCB Legal acting as solicitor.
They are claiming £319.08, made up of a £234.08 claimed amount
(£170 charge plus interest), a £35 court fee, and £50 legal
costs. I need to submit my response by 15 September 2026.
My questions are: should I defend the claim; what should I
include in my response; does the WhatsApp cancellation
confirmation help; is there an issue with the lack of
communication before the amount increased and was passed to debt
recovery; and does it matter that I was not given a proper
opportunity to appeal or have my evidence reviewed once DCBL
became involved?
I would also appreciate advice on what happens next, as I have
never been to court before and am nervous about the process. I
am prepared to defend it because I do not feel I am in the wrong
or that the correct process has been followed. I would also like
to know whether anyone has successfully raised a counterclaim
for the stress, anxiety, repeated debt collector contact, and
potential time off work/travel costs if the matter goes to
court.
Thanks in advance.
#Post#: 129257--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 1, 2026, 6:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you do some research by searching the forum, you will see
that cases brought by DCB Legal are almost always discontinued
before the court fee has to be paid, as long as they are
properly defended.
Do not counterclaim in your response, because this will prevent
DCB Legal from discontinuing which I believe you want them to
do. Unless you want your “day in court”.
DCBL corectly state they have nothing to do with the details,
they are debt collectors on commission to relieve you of your
money. You should stop communicating with them in any way. If
you understand how powerless they are, you might get less
stressed, but their tactics are essentially to frighten you into
paying.
If you’re going to defend, you need to come up with a defence
which addresses the Notice to Keeper and the Particulars of
Claim on the N1SDT claim form, and if you want advice you need
to post them both here for us to see. Plus any appeal
correspondence you might have sent. The driver entered into a
contract by reading signs and by parking, and is now liable for
a claim of breach of contract in some way, and it may be
possible that the liability can be transferred to the registered
keeper provided that certain provisions have been complied with
- Parking Eye usually does so.
You can claim only limited expenses in the Small Claims track,
such as loss of earnings and travel costs including parking
fees. In the unlikely event that this ever reaches a court
hearing.
You need to file a defence or an Acknowledgment of Service by
4pm on 14 September. If you file an AoS you have until 4pm on 28
September to file a defence.
#Post#: 129270--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: Tarli
Date: September 1, 2026, 8:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much for the advice, it’s been massively helpful and
has made things a lot clearer.
Based on what you’ve said, I don’t want to raise a counterclaim
if that risks complicating things or causing problems for me.
The best outcome for me would be for Parking Eye/DCB Legal to
discontinue or cancel the claim before it gets as far as court.
That said, I do want to make sure I respond properly and put
forward a strong defence if it does continue.
Could you please advise what I should do next? I’m happy to
draft a defence and would really appreciate some help with the
wording. I can attach the N1SDT claim form so you can see
exactly what has been issued and what they are claiming.
Thanks again — I really appreciate the guidance.
How do I attach the document please? The attachments menu below
isnt giving me a 'browse' option?
#Post#: 129273--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 1, 2026, 8:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Guide: Posting Images
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/posting-images/#new
A copy of the Claim Form would be useful - we only need to see
the page containing the Particulars of Claim, as these form the
basis of the case against you. Please don't obscure any dates,
but do obscure the MCOL password and case reference if there is
one.
#Post#: 129293--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: Tarli
Date: September 1, 2026, 10:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the responses, here is the link to the claims form,
any issues or you need more info please let me know -
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-8gZCfgZpJJ6DRC03d1-w6QwQNfdeHxm/view?usp=sharing
I've drafted a defence with the help of AI so please let me know
if this is along the right lines or I should take a different
approach with it -
Defence
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum
claimed, or any sum at all.
The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle referred
to in the claim. The Defendant’s partner was using the vehicle
on the material date when taking their son to a swimming lesson
at the Holiday Inn premises. The swimming lesson was provided by
a third-party swim company using the hotel’s pool facilities.
The vehicle was parked at the Holiday Inn because the
Defendant’s partner and child were genuine users of the
facilities. This was not a case of parking at the site for an
unrelated purpose.
The Defendant understands that the car park had recently started
being managed by ParkingEye and that users of the hotel
facilities were required to enter their vehicle registration at
reception. The Defendant’s partner believes she entered the
vehicle registration at reception, although it is possible that
one character may have been entered incorrectly.
The Defendant’s position is that any alleged breach, if one
occurred, arose from a genuine attempt to comply with the
registration process and/or a minor keying error. The Defendant
does not accept that this gave rise to a valid or proportionate
parking charge in the circumstances.
Following receipt of the original ParkingEye charge, issued on
or around 14 March 2022, the Defendant challenged the matter
through the swimming lesson provider, who escalated it to
Holiday Inn. The Defendant provided evidence that the vehicle
occupants were using the facilities legitimately.
The Defendant received confirmation by WhatsApp from the
swimming lesson provider that the charge had been cancelled. The
Defendant therefore reasonably believed that the matter had been
resolved and closed.
The Defendant did not receive clear follow-up correspondence
from ParkingEye confirming that the charge remained outstanding,
that the cancellation had not been actioned, that the sum had
increased, or that the matter would be escalated to debt
recovery.
In June 2023, the Defendant received correspondence from DCBL
seeking £170. The Defendant contacted DCBL within the stated
timeframe and explained that the charge had already been
disputed and that the Defendant understood it had been
cancelled. The Defendant also provided evidence supporting that
position.
DCBL stated that they were acting only in relation to debt
recovery and would not review the evidence or consider an
appeal. The Defendant was therefore not given a meaningful
opportunity at that stage to resolve the matter or have the
evidence properly reviewed.
The Defendant also contacted ParkingEye directly and sought to
appeal the matter. ParkingEye responded to say that there was no
appeal on their file. The Defendant’s understanding is that
Holiday Inn may have informed the swimming company that the
charge would be cancelled, but that this was not actioned with
ParkingEye.
The Defendant is now unable to obtain further information
directly from Holiday Inn because the hotel premises have since
closed to the public.
From September 2024 onwards, the Defendant received
correspondence from DCB Legal Solicitors, together with further
calls and letters from DCBL. The Defendant continued to engage
with the process and repeatedly explained that the charge was
disputed and that the Defendant did not accept liability.
On 14 July 2026, the Defendant received a Letter of Claim from
DCB Legal. The Defendant responded within the 30-day period,
confirming that payment would not be made because liability was
denied, and explaining that the Defendant was engaging with the
process so there could be no suggestion that the matter was
being ignored.
The Defendant denies that the Claimant has properly accounted
for the previous cancellation confirmation, the evidence
provided, or the Defendant’s attempts to resolve the matter.
The Defendant further denies that the Claimant is entitled to
recover the additional sum claimed above the original parking
charge. The claim now seeks £319.08, including a claimed amount
of £234.08, a £35 court fee, and £50 legal costs. The Defendant
puts the Claimant to strict proof of how the claimed amount has
been calculated and why any additional debt recovery or interest
sums are said to be recoverable.
The Defendant avers that any added debt recovery sum is not a
genuine contractual fee incurred by the Claimant and is an
attempt at double recovery. The Defendant understands that the
usual parking charge already includes the Claimant’s operating
and recovery costs.
The Defendant also puts the Claimant to strict proof that:
the signage at the site was clear, prominent, and capable of
forming a contract;
the terms relating to registration entry and any charges for
alleged keying errors were clearly brought to the attention of
motorists;
the Claimant had authority from the landowner or lawful occupier
to issue parking charges and pursue court proceedings in its own
name;
the alleged breach occurred as pleaded;
the Defendant is liable as registered keeper under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, if the Claimant
seeks to rely on keeper liability;
the amount claimed is recoverable.
The Defendant will rely on the fact that the occupants of the
vehicle were authorised users of the Holiday Inn facilities,
that evidence of this was provided, and that the Defendant
received confirmation that the charge had been cancelled.
The Defendant’s case is that it would be unfair and unreasonable
for the Claimant to pursue a parking charge years later in
circumstances where the Defendant reasonably believed the matter
had been cancelled, engaged with the process throughout, and was
not given a proper opportunity for the evidence to be reviewed
once debt recovery action began.
For the reasons above, the Defendant denies the claim in full
and asks the Court to dismiss it.
#Post#: 129409--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 2, 2026, 12:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest using "driver" rather than "Defendant's
partner".
It's incomprehensible as a defence - when a magistrate or judge
reads this, what are the grounds on which you are defending
this? At the very least, start with a summary of this.
Don't use "unfair". It's not about fairness or otherwise, it's
about the law and the facts. A claim for breach of contract can
be brought within six years.
You have hold a lot of the relevant facts, it's just about how
you argue and present them I suggest.
#Post#: 129413--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: Tarli
Date: September 2, 2026, 12:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your response. Do you have any suggestions on the
best route to take and what I should focus on to make a good
defence? TIA
#Post#: 129420--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 2, 2026, 1:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Tarli link ---
>
> Thanks for your response. Do you have any suggestions on the
best route to take and what I should focus on to make a good
defence? TIA
>
--- End Quote ---
I thought that was what I was doing!
Think about how someone reading this defence for the first time
will understand it, and tailor your response accordingly, I
suggest. Make it easy for them. No need to exclude things, but
make your primary point first and back them up as required.
I found it hard or impossible to read to understand the points
you were trying to make. Set these out clearly first.
#Post#: 129426--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: Tarli
Date: September 2, 2026, 2:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your suggestions it's been very helpful. Please see
the new draft and any pointer would be appreciated -
Draft Defence
1. Denial of liability
1.
relief claimed, or any relief at all.
2.
dismissed because the vehicle occupants were genuine authorised
users of the hotel facilities, the driver made a genuine attempt
to comply with the parking requirements, the Defendant received
confirmation that the charge had been cancelled and reasonably
relied on that confirmation, and the sums now claimed are
disputed.
2. Background
1.
2.
swimming lesson at a Holiday Inn hotel. The lesson was operated
by a third-party swim company using the hotel’s facilities.
3.
facilities and understood they were permitted to park, subject
to entering the vehicle registration at reception.
4.
reception, but it may have involved a minor keying error
affecting a single character.
5.
the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of the
registration logs from the material date, including whether a
near-match registration was entered.
3. Cancellation of the charge
1.
Defendant challenged the matter through the swimming lesson
provider, who escalated it to Holiday Inn.
2.
legitimate users of the premises.
3.
from the swimming lesson provider that the charge had been
cancelled.
4.
believed the matter had been resolved, and therefore took no
further action at that time.
5.
the supporting evidence.
4. Subsequent correspondence
1.
the cancellation had not been actioned, that the charge remained
outstanding, that the charge had increased, or that the matter
would be escalated to debt recovery.
2.
seeking £170.
3.
previously been disputed and cancelled, and supplied supporting
evidence.
4.
purposes and would not review the evidence or consider an
appeal.
5.
sought to appeal the charge. ParkingEye responded stating that
no appeal was recorded on their file.
6.
does not undermine the earlier cancellation confirmation
received via the swimming provider/Holiday Inn route, which the
Defendant reasonably relied upon.
5. Additional sums claimed
1.
the additional sums claimed above the original parking charge.
2.
despite the original parking charge being £100. The Defendant
understands this includes the £170 charge plus interest and/or
additional sums.
3.
claimed amount has been calculated, the contractual basis relied
upon, and whether all sums claimed are legally recoverable.
4.
recovery costs form part of any recoverable contractual charge
and avers that any such sum is an attempt at double recovery.
6. Strict proof required
1.
and prominent signage existed at the site, the relevant
contractual terms were properly communicated, the Claimant had
authority from the landowner to issue parking charges and pursue
litigation, the alleged breach occurred as pleaded, and the
Claimant is entitled to rely upon keeper liability if such
reliance is asserted.
7. Conclusion
1.
legitimate users of the premises, the driver attempted to comply
with the registration process, the Defendant received and relied
upon confirmation that the charge had been cancelled, and the
Defendant disputes both liability and the additional sums
claimed.
2.
claim be dismissed.
#Post#: 129463--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 3, 2026, 5:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can we see the evidence pl.
The Notice to Keeper - THE key document. Absent a compliant NTK,
no liability arises, so let's start with this.
I provided proof that we were using the facilities and received
WhatsApp confirmation from the swim provider saying the charge
had been cancelled,
Pl post.
Have you engaged with the 'swim provider' since 2022?
In June 2023, I received a DCBL debt recovery letter for £170.
But the NTK must have been dated March/April 2022. Was this the
first follow-up? If so, it's very, very unusual.
As I read it, you did not engage with PE at the NTK stage but
instead followed an extra-procedural route to get the charge
cancelled via the 'swim provider' and Holiday Inn. If HI were
the landowner, and therefore PE's principal, then this is
important info.
I suggest gathering your objective facts and then putting
together a supporting narrative.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page