DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 94869--------------------------------------------------
PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: c4733
Date: October 20, 2025, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
Want to firstly thank everyone who help to contribute to this
site, you advice to others has been invaluable from the many
threads that I have read and information I have used so far.
This is the first thread I have posted and I am currently at the
stage of mediation with the Claimant: Parkingeye/DCB Legal. The
appointment is on Monday 27th October. I did try to rearrange as
I am away for the week with family during half-term and forgot
to put the dates down on the form, but HMCTS refused to change
it. I guess I will have to pull over in a lay-by or on the hard
shoulder and take the call. :-\
To give a quick background, was parked in a FREE hospital
carpark (August 2024) supposedly in a wrong bay (Staff). Ignored
all letters recieved from various fake debtors and fake legal
firms until in landed with DCB Legal. They then pursued the
courts.
Current amount Claimant seeking.
It started off as £70 reduced to £40 paid within 14 days. Now -
£233.43.
Amount cliamed: £148.43
Court Fee: £35.00
Legal Rep: £50.00
Total £233.43.
There is a set of questions [member=26]b789[/member] has
provided on other threads, which I am going to use:
"For the mediation call, the only requirement is for you
"attend" the call. It is not part of the judicial process, and
no judge is involved.
This is what I advise you to say when you receive the call from
the mediator:
“Before I set out my position, please confirm from the
claimant’s side:
• the full name of the person attending for them;
• their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and
• whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle
today.
Please relay that back to me before we continue.”
After the mediator calls back...
If identified and authority confirmed:
“Thank you. I’m content to proceed on that basis. My settlement
offer is £0, or I invite the claimant to discontinue with no
order as to costs.”
If no/unclear authority:
“Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed
settlement authority. My position remains that liability is
denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an
authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.”"
Question.
If the mediator caller says that the other side is: "Litigator
Support" is there anything I should say to this?
Thank you in advance for you any postive comments and advice.
:)
#Post#: 94890--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 20, 2025, 4:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: c4733 link ---
>
> If the mediator caller says that the other side is: "Litigator
Support" is there anything I should say to this?
>
--- End Quote ---
That'd be a good name for someone working at a law firm.
I think you have answered your own question with the statement
you included immediately before said question
--- Quote from: c4733 link ---
>
> “Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed
settlement authority. My position remains that liability is
denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an
authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.”"
--- End Quote ---
Being pragmatic, I wouldn't worry too much about mediation one
way or another. Whilst it's useful in some small claims, it is
largely pointless in private parking cases.
#Post#: 94899--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: b789
Date: October 20, 2025, 4:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
More importantly, what exactly did you submit as your defence?
You know that when ParkingEye hand over action of a claim to DCB
Legal, they know they don't stand an ice cubes chance in hell of
being successful. As long as your defence was reasonable, this
will never ever reach a hearing and will be discontinued in due
course, just before they are required to pay the £27 trial fee.
What they are hoping for is that you are low-hanging fruit on
the gullible tree who can be intimidated into paying up out of
ignorance and fear. A bit later in the process, you will start
to receive calls or texts or letters from DCB Legal offering to
settle for a reduced amount. That is the usual precursor to
their discontinuance. Ignore all offers of a settlement.
As DCB Legal claims on behalf of ParkingEye always fail to
comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), did you include with your defence
any transcripts of Chan or Akande to persuade the court to
strike out the claim for providing no cause of action?
#Post#: 94914--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: c4733
Date: October 21, 2025, 2:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you DWMB2 and b789 and duly noted.
"did you include with your defence any transcripts of Chan or
Akande to persuade the court to strike out the claim for
providing no cause of action?"
I used only the advice you provided to others and myself as a
defence, see here:
"DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant
asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no
debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately
disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim
(PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR
16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the
PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons)
why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract
(or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity
exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the
breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was
parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft
order approved by a district judge at another court. The court
struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining
that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4.
The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the
terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was
allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as
permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum
claimed, requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than
permitting an amendment.
5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this
case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by
striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with
CPR 16.4.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I
understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought
against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false
statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without
an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
DRAFT ORDER
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do
not comply with CPR 16.4 because (a) they do not set out the
exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and
conditions of the contract (or contracts)which is (or are)
relied on and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason(or
reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in
breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4 had it served
separate detailed particulars of claim [as it could have done
pursuant to CPRPD7C.5.2(2) but it chose not to do that.
AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the
court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with
the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share
of the court resources by ordering further particulars of claim
and a further defence each of which will be followed further
referrals to the judge for case management.
Order
1.The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by an application on notice which must be filed
at this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made."
Should i've included anything else? This was done back in July
and I was closely following advice from another thread in the
same position.
:)
#Post#: 95017--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: b789
Date: October 21, 2025, 9:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Never mind. There are actually two versions of the defence,
depending on the PoC. The version you sent is not the one I
would recommend as DCB Legal will have failed to include a cause
of action in breach of CPR 16.4(1)(a).
However, that defence will be enough for them to eventually
discontinue.
#Post#: 95043--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: c4733
Date: October 21, 2025, 11:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay. I hope so. I will post an update next week once mediation
is over with.
#Post#: 96409--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: c4733
Date: November 1, 2025, 5:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
I am now back from my breakaway with the family this week so
here is an update to what happened with mediation on Monday 27th
Oct. HMCTS refused some weeks ago to reschedule the appointment
date (which clashed with my breakaway) so I had no alternative,
but to take the call and I had to pull over in a nearby lay-by
as I was driving at the time to our destination.
To say it was a complete waste of time is an understatement. The
total of the two calls from mediation last 7 minutes, starting
at 10:10am.
The member of staff introduced themselves and then went on to
give me a big speech of the reasons why the claimant is pursing
the claim against me. At no point did they provide me with any
details of the claimants representatives they would be speaking
to nor were they going to.
I used the dialogue that was kindly provided by
[member=26]b789[/member] to firstly challenge who the claimants
representatives were:
“Before I set out my position, please confirm from the
claimant’s side:
• the full name of the person attending for them;
• their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and
• whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle
today."
And here is what the mediator relayed back to me on the second
call from the other side.
"We are not obliged to give our details, but my name is -
Justice - and I work for the Litigation Support Team of DCB
Legal".
The mediator went on to say to me (almost vouching for them) "I
have confirmed they are authorised to act on behalf of the
claimant".
Again, I used the informing to challenge this calm and politely:
“Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed
settlement authority. My position remains that liability is
denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an
authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.”
I could hear in the mediators voice they were extremely annoyed
by what I had said because they turned round and said to me:
"this call is private and confidential, there is no record to be
taken of what you have said, nor will I relay this back to the
claimants representatives. I will advise the courts that
mediation between the parties has failed to reach an agreement".
So that's it, a complete waste of time of the telephone call or
them taking on board I what I had said. >:(
The call ended by the mediator saying this will be a matter for
the courts to decide now, and for the claimant to pay the court
fee and it can take 6 -12 months to decide.
I'm sure the good helpful folks on here knows what happens from
hereon so I shall be listening carefully to your comments and
advice?
Once again, thank you all.
#Post#: 96457--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: b789
Date: November 1, 2025, 1:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We know that it is a complete waste of everyones time. However,
you have to jump through the hoops, and you have done so.
However, you do have ground for complaint about the useless
mediator.
1. Mediator’s Neutrality and Conduct
The mediator appeared to paraphrase or justify the claimant’s
position, effectively giving a “speech” on why the claimant was
pursuing the case. That is not the mediator’s role. A mediator
must remain strictly impartial, facilitate balanced dialogue,
and not appear to advocate for either side.
2. Failure to Confirm the Identity and Authority of the
Claimant’s Representative
You, the defendant reasonably asked for the claimant’s
representative’s full name, position, and confirmation of
settlement authority.
The mediator should have relayed that request and, at minimum,
confirmed the person’s role and firm. Instead, the response —
“we are not obliged to give our details” — is unsatisfactory and
inconsistent with the mediation service’s obligation to ensure
both parties can identify who they are dealing with.
The mediator’s statement that they had “confirmed” the
representative’s authority, without evidencing how, could be
construed as taking responsibility for verifying something they
could not properly verify.
3. Refusal to Record or Relay a Material Statement
When you asked that your position be recorded — that the
claimant’s attendee had not confirmed settlement authority and
that your offer was £0 — the mediator said they would not record
or relay this, and that the call was “private and confidential”.
This is incorrect: while the mediation discussions are
confidential in substance (without prejudice), the mediator must
record the outcome and relevant procedural notes (e.g., “party
requested confirmation of authority; representative refused;
party declined to negotiate further”). Refusing to note such
points prevents an accurate record and deprives you of
procedural fairness.
4. Procedural Fairness and Service Quality
The mediation lasted barely seven minutes, apparently consisting
mostly of the mediator summarising the claimant’s case and then
closing the session without properly exploring resolution. This
suggests a failure to provide a meaningful mediation
opportunity.
5. Grounds for Complaint
You should make a formal complaint to the HMCTS Small Claims
Mediation Service, citing:
[indent]• Apparent bias or partiality in the mediator’s tone and
content.
• Failure to ensure transparency about the identity and
authority of the claimant’s representative.
• Failure to record your stated position.
• Failure to facilitate a fair process, resulting in an
unproductive and truncated session.[/indent]
Suggested Course of action
A concise, factual complaint should be sent to: "HMCTS Small
Claims Mediation Service – Complaints" with the case number,
mediation date, and time.
The complaint should focus on procedural failings and
impartiality, not on the merits of the claim itself.
You can email the HMCTS Small Claims Mediation Service with the
following and CC yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Complaint – Conduct of Mediation on 27 October
2025
>
> Case Reference: [Insert Claim Number]
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I write to raise a formal complaint regarding the conduct of
the mediation call held on Monday 27 October 2025 at 10:10am,
which I attended as the Defendant in the above-referenced case.
>
> HMCTS had declined my earlier request to reschedule the
mediation date, despite advance notice of an unavoidable family
commitment. Consequently, I had no alternative but to take the
call from a safe location en route to my destination.
>
> The mediation consisted of two brief calls totalling
approximately seven minutes and, in my view, did not meet the
standards of impartiality, transparency, or procedural fairness
expected from the HMCTS Mediation Service. I outline my concerns
below:
>
> 1. Lack of Impartiality
> The mediator opened the session by giving what amounted to a
summary of the claimant’s case and reasons for pursuing it. This
created the impression that the mediator was advocating for one
side rather than facilitating balanced dialogue between both
parties.
>
> Under the Civil Mediation Council (CMC) Code of Conduct,
Section 2.1, mediators must “act fairly, impartially, and
without bias towards any party.” The HMCTS Service Standards
similarly require mediators to “remain neutral and ensure that
both parties have equal opportunity to be heard”. I do not
believe those standards were met.
>
> 2. Failure to Ensure Transparency Regarding the Claimant’s
Representative
> I asked for confirmation of the claimant’s representative’s
full name, position, and settlement authority. The mediator
relayed the following response:
>
> “We are not obliged to give our details, but my name is
[Justice] and I work for the Litigation Support Team of DCB
Legal”.
> The mediator then stated, “I have confirmed they are
authorised to act on behalf of the claimant”.
>
> Under CMC Code Section 2.3, mediators must ensure that “each
party has sufficient information to participate effectively.” A
party cannot meaningfully engage in settlement discussions
without knowing the identity and authority of the opposing
representative. The mediator’s handling of this issue was
inadequate and created uncertainty over whether the claimant’s
representative had any lawful authority to negotiate.
>
> 3. Refusal to Record a Material Statement
> When I asked for my position to be recorded—that the
claimant’s attendee had not confirmed settlement authority and
that my offer was £0—the mediator refused, stating that the call
was “private and confidential” and that no record would be made.
>
> I understand that mediation discussions are confidential;
however, CMC Code Section 3.2 clarifies that mediators must
“record and report the outcome accurately,” including any
procedural points that affect the fairness of the process.
Refusing to note my statement meant the official record failed
to reflect the true circumstances of the mediation.
>
> 4. Unreasonable Truncation of the Mediation Session
> The entire mediation lasted barely seven minutes and ended
abruptly with the mediator stating that the matter would now
proceed to court. There was no meaningful attempt to facilitate
discussion, summarise positions, or explore potential
settlement.
>
> HMCTS Service Standards state that mediators should
“facilitate open communication and explore possible areas of
agreement before concluding.” That standard was not followed.
>
> In summary, I believe the mediation process on this occasion
was procedurally defective and failed to meet both HMCTS and
Civil Mediation Council standards of impartiality, fairness, and
transparency. I request that this complaint be investigated and
that I receive a written response detailing your findings and
any remedial action to ensure compliance in future mediations.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Full Name]
> Defendant
> [Address / Email]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96531--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: Adegaw
Date: November 2, 2025, 11:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I just read this and yes, this was the same mediator I had. I
felt they were partial and annoyed that I was offering £0 . At
one point I had to check my phone to see if I was speaking to
DCB legal instead of a mediator!
#Post#: 96546--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: b789
Date: November 2, 2025, 1:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Adegaw link ---
>
> I just read this and yes, this was the same mediator I had. I
felt they were partial and annoyed that I was offering £0 . At
one point I had to check my phone to see if I was speaking to
DCB legal instead of a mediator!
>
--- End Quote ---
Feel free to make a formal complaint also.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page