DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 115562--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice of Intended Legal Action - Parking Eye - DCBL
DIR By: S.M
Date: April 10, 2026, 2:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Received a reply from DCB legal.they only attached picture of
the car entering and exiting the car park.
We write in response to your correspondence received in our
office dated 27th of March 2026.
We now respond to the same as follows.
Please find attached all relevant evidence we hold on the
matter.
When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site
are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract, agreeing
to the terms by parking, and staying on the site. Parking in
breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you
are then breaking the terms of the contract.
The terms and conditions on the signs clearly provided tariff
rates to pay for parking, if the correct payment was not made a
parking charge would be issued. The parking charge was issued
correctly as you failed to pay for the correct time your vehicle
was on site.
A Notice to Keeper was issued to you. You were afforded the
opportunity to; appeal the parking charge, transfer liability to
the driver (if it was not you) or make payment. Neither a
successful appeal, nor an adequate nomination were received, yet
payment remains outstanding.
You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment
of £170.00. Failure to make payment may result in a Claim being
issued against you without any further reference.
Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client
account:
Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
Sort Code: 20-24-09
Account Number: 60964441
You must quote the correct case reference (711200999882PEL) when
making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly
allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a
result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be
liable for any further fees or costs incurred.
Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to
make payment over the telephone or online at
HTML https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.
#Post#: 118718--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice of Intended Legal Action - Parking Eye - DCBL
DIR By: S.M
Date: May 14, 2026, 4:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Received the claim form from the courts today 14/05/2026
HTML https://i.ibb.co/JwCZy59J/markup-1000312714.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/1tbcd8kW
HTML https://i.ibb.co/08bj0B8/markup-1000312716.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/gHKM0vH
HTML https://i.ibb.co/r2RZCVjt/PXL-20260514-214750816.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/m5VHL3jB
#Post#: 118729--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice of Intended Legal Action - Parking Eye - DCBL
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 15, 2026, 12:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> But you will need to file a defence in due course.
--- End Quote ---
By 1 June, or you file an Acknowledgment of Service by this date
which gives you until 15 June to file a defence.
You were promised a template defence earlier in this thread by
someone who no longer posts here, but increasingly we have seen
the likely template defence struck out by the courts because
it’s generic and addresses the failings of the claimant’s
process rather than being a defence specific to the case.
You have the information you need in this thread to construct a
defence around Parking Eye’s failure to comply with PoFA 2012 to
transfer liability from the unknown driver to the hirer, so I
suggest you work on that, structure it into paragraphs for
clarity and post it here for comment.
The basic point that DCB Legal will almost certainly discontinue
in the face of a properly defended claim stands.
#Post#: 118737--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice of Intended Legal Action - Parking Eye - DCBL
DIR By: S.M
Date: May 15, 2026, 4:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> [quote]But you will need to file a defence in due course.
--- End Quote ---
By 1 June, or you file an Acknowledgment of Service by this date
which gives you until 15 June to file a defence.
You were promised a template defence earlier in this thread by
someone who no longer posts here, but increasingly we have seen
the likely template defence struck out by the courts because
it’s generic and addresses the failings of the claimant’s
process rather than being a defence specific to the case.
You have the information you need in this thread to construct a
defence around Parking Eye’s failure to comply with PoFA 2012 to
transfer liability from the unknown driver to the hirer, so I
suggest you work on that, structure it into paragraphs for
clarity and post it here for comment.
The basic point that DCB Legal will almost certainly discontinue
in the face of a properly defended claim stands.
[/quote]
Could this be used
--- Quote ---
> N THE COUNTY COURT
> Claim No: [Claim Number]
>
> BETWEEN:
>
> UK Parking Control Ltd
> Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]
> 
Defendant
>
>
> DEFENCE
>
>
> 1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.
>
> 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 which is
relied on;
>
> (c) 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;
>
> (d) The PoC do not state exactly how the claim for statutory
interest is calculated;
>
> (e) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
>
> (f) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as
the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether
the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and
should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action.
>
> 4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an
order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to
make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and
understand the case which he/she/it faces and can then respond
properly to the claim.
>
> 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:
--- End Quote ---
Draft Order for the defence
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gmpkg6f843yga1sw1iwdo/short-defence-order.docx?rlkey=ppd7dwlale9j25111548n2e1j&e=1&st=i7va3biw&dl=0
#Post#: 118739--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice of Intended Legal Action - Parking Eye - DCBL
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 15, 2026, 4:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It’s vague, waffly, does not address the specifics of the claim
and completely misses the winning point of non compliance with
PoFA 2012.
Is it true, and do you understand it?
My advice remains that you need to invest a small amount of
effort to write your own defence rather than copying something
from elsewhere and hoping. Especially given that you’ve had
almost two months to think about it.
But you don’t have to take my advice. I’ll say no more.
#Post#: 118756--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice of Intended Legal Action - Parking Eye - DCBL
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 15, 2026, 8:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We've seen at least 3 cases in the past couple of weeks where
defences using that template have been struck out. Many judges
are (understandably) growing weary of parking claims where both
sides are using a boilerplate.
It's true that the PoC are vague, but rightly or wrongly few
judges see fit to strike them out, and from this thread it would
seem apparent that you know enough about the case to be able to
respond to the claim.
#Post#: 118804--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice of Intended Legal Action - Parking Eye - DCBL
DIR By: S.M
Date: May 15, 2026, 4:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT
> Claim No: [Claim Number]
>
> BETWEEN:
>
> Parking EYE LTD
>
> Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]
> 
Defendant
> [/center]
>
>
>
> DEFENCE
>
>
> 1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.
>
> 2. The Claimant has failed to comply with POFA 2012
specifically :-
> (a)
hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice
to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in
paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;
> (b)
firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was
hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
> a.
> b.
under that hire agreement.
>
>
> 3. 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.
>
> 4. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
> (a)
the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.3)
> (b)
> clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
> contracts) which is/are relied on;
> (c)
exact
> time when the breaches occurred and how long it is alleged
that
> the vehicle was parked before the parking charges were
allegedly
> incurred;
> (d)
> interest is calculated;
> (e)
> parking charges and what proportion is damages;
> (f)
the
> driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the
> defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should
not
> be permitted to plead alternative causes of action
>
>
> 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:
>
--- End Quote ---
Is this one ok?
#Post#: 118808--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice of Intended Legal Action - Parking Eye - DCBL
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 15, 2026, 5:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I’d add something to (2) to the effect of
--- Quote ---
> and therefore the defendant, as hirer, can not be held liable
when the driver has not been identified
--- End Quote ---
just to make the point.
#Post#: 118811--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice of Intended Legal Action - Parking Eye - DCBL
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 15, 2026, 5:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Parking Eye have history in using DCB Legal for cases in which
they try to scare people into paying, whereas they litigate
directly for cases in which they believe they have a strong
basis for their claim. So here I expect the usual DCB Legal
bluster until they discontinue before having to pay the court
fee. No guarantees of course.
#Post#: 119080--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice of Intended Legal Action - Parking Eye - DCBL
DIR By: S.M
Date: May 18, 2026, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> Yes, I’d add something to (2) to the effect of
>
> [quote]and therefore the defendant, as hirer, can not be held
liable when the driver has not been identified
--- End Quote ---
just to make the point.
[/quote]
can i replace it with this? - unfortunately for some reason the
formatting isn`t coming up correctly for me to paste the whole
defense again. if this is ok, do i fill up the acknowledgment of
defence and put this as my defence form?
--- Quote ---
> 2. The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict
requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 ("POFA 2012"), specifically:
> (a) The Creditor failed to provide the Hirer with a 'Notice to
Hirer' within the relevant statutory period in accordance with
Paragraph 14(2)(a);
>
> (b) The 'Notice to Hirer' was not accompanied by the mandatory
documents required under Paragraph 14(2)(b), namely:
>
> (i) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire
firm confirming that the vehicle was hired to a named person
under a hire agreement;
> (ii) A copy of the relevant hire agreement; and
> (iii) A copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer
under that hire agreement.
>
> Consequently, the Claimant has failed to satisfy the strict
statutory conditions required to transfer liability from the
registered keeper to the hirer.
> In the absence of POFA 2012 compliance, the Claimant has no
lawful right to pursue the Defendant in their capacity as the
hirer. Therefore, the Defendant, as hirer, cannot be held liable
for this charge when the identity of the driver at the material
time has not been established, and the Defendant is under no
legal obligation to identify the driver.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page