DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 112551--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
DIR By: aland
Date: March 9, 2026, 8:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes I have submitted an AoS
#Post#: 112557--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 9, 2026, 10:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you search the forum for similar responses to similar
woeful Particulars of Claim from DCB Legal.
If you submit a defence, it’s likely they will discontinue.
The contents of the defence almost don’t matter.
If you get a more specific response tailored to your specific
circumstances, then all well and good, but I suggest you come up
with your own defence based on existing cases on this forum.
If you post your proposed defence for comment here you’re more
likely to get input than if you don’t.
You have to take some ownership of this.
#Post#: 112566--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
DIR By: aland
Date: March 9, 2026, 11:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, I am taking ownership. However, I am relying on the
advice of the people that posted before to provide reassurance
that this would be dismissed if "defended properly", and I do
not know that defended properly means as I have no experience
with this issue. You are saying content does not matter, but if
that is the case, what does defended properly mean?
Here is a defence I found on another page. I have no idea what
this means, which is why I am asking for advice on what to put
in my defence. Is this defence adequate then?
"
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 adequately 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 PD 16, para 7.3(1);
(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 submits that courts have previously struck out
materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to
adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the
Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms
relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient
clarity.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found
that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. 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
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR
16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant
proposes that the following Order be made:
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 adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do
not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the
terms and conditions of the contract 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(1)(a) had it
served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have
done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding
objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct
further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s
resources to this claim (for example by ordering further
particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent 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 application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made."
#Post#: 112571--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
DIR By: aland
Date: March 9, 2026, 12:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is an updated defence letter I am planning to submit, a bit
more specific to the case here.
DEFENCE
The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle referred
to in the claim. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety
of the claim.
The Claimant alleges that the vehicle remained parked at Selly
Oak Shopping Park beyond the maximum permitted stay on two
occasions, namely 12 July 2022 and 20 July 2022.
The Defendant has not been provided with evidence identifying
the driver. The Defendant is under no obligation to identify the
driver and declines to do so. The Claimant is therefore put to
strict proof as to the identity of the driver.
In order to pursue the registered keeper, the Claimant must
demonstrate strict compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has
failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of that statute
and is therefore unable to transfer liability from the driver to
the registered keeper.
The Claimant relies upon Automatic Number Plate Recognition
(ANPR) timestamps which merely record entry and exit to the
site. These timestamps do not establish the period of parking
and do not account for time spent entering the site, locating a
space, manoeuvring within the car park, reading signage, or
queueing to exit.
The alleged overstay on 12 July 2022 is approximately eleven
minutes based solely on ANPR entry and exit timestamps. This
period is entirely consistent with the mandatory grace periods
required under the Code of Practice of the British Parking
Association, of which the Claimant is a member. Those grace
periods include time for a driver to read the signage upon
arrival and a minimum ten-minute grace period to leave the car
park after the permitted parking period has expired.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that these grace periods
were properly applied and that the ANPR timestamps represent the
actual period of parking rather than merely the vehicle’s
presence within the site boundary.
The Claimant is further put to strict proof that the signage at
the location was sufficiently prominent and clear to form a
legally binding contract with the driver.
The Claimant is also put to strict proof that it has the
necessary authority from the landowner to issue parking charges
and pursue litigation in its own name.
Prior to proceedings, the Defendant requested key documents
including signage evidence and landowner authority. The Claimant
failed to provide these documents, asserting that the request
was disproportionate. This conduct demonstrates a failure to
properly engage with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
The Particulars of Claim are sparse and fail to adequately set
out the contractual terms allegedly breached. The claim
therefore fails to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction
16 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as they do not provide
sufficient detail to enable the Defendant to understand the
precise basis of the claim.
The Claimant seeks to recover £340 for two parking charges
originally issued at £100 each. The additional £70 per charge is
described as “damages” or “debt recovery” and represents an
attempt at double recovery.
Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
makes clear that the maximum sum recoverable from a registered
keeper is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper. The
additional sums claimed are therefore unrecoverable.
The Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis permitted
a parking charge in specific circumstances but confirmed that
the parking charge itself already includes the operational costs
of running the scheme. It does not permit the recovery of
additional debt recovery costs.
The additional sums sought are therefore an abuse of process and
an attempt to artificially inflate the value of the claim.
For the reasons stated above, the Defendant denies that the
Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or to any relief
whatsoever.
#Post#: 117971--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
DIR By: aland
Date: May 6, 2026, 4:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I submitted my defence a few months ago.
I had a letter acknowledging receipt of my defence, and
informing me that the claimant needs to contact the court within
28days if they wish to proceed. That was back in march,
i have had no further correspondence from HM courts and
tribunals.
I logged in today to see what was happening and I have found
this status update.
A claim was issued against you on 17/02/2026
Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 02/03/2026 at
22:50:30
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 03/03/2026 at
08:07:18
Your defence was submitted on 15/03/2026 at 12:51:04
Your defence was received on 16/03/2026 at 01:06:47
DQ filed by claimant on 16/04/2026
DQ sent to you on 16/04/2026
I have not received a "DQ" if it was sent to me by post.
What should I do now? Can I submit this DQ form online, or do I
need to contact the courts to inform them that this has not been
received?
thanks
#Post#: 117987--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 7, 2026, 1:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Search the forum for N180 and you will find
--- Quote ---
> Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a
copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore
all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those.
Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign
it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
>
>
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
>
> Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
>
> • The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
>
> • To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the
"Defendant".
>
> • C1: "YES"
>
> • D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about
their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions
and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
> Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking
case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on
papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage,
especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to
have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants
template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events
in question.."
>
> • F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find
it:
HTML https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
>
> • F3: "1".
>
> • Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the
signature.
>
> When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email
addressed to both dq.cnbc[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk
and (email of solicitor) and CC in yourself. Make sure that the
claim number is in the subject field of the email.
--- End Quote ---
Just do it as soon as possible. “Received” includes MCOL
notification even if you didn’t get it in the post.
The normal action for a late submission is a reminder from the
court, so by submitting asap you cut out that step.
#Post#: 129207--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
DIR By: aland
Date: August 30, 2026, 3:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I attended the mediation meeting and we did not reach a
settlement - I offered nothing.
I understand the case has now been referred to my local court. I
assume that dcb will therefore attend this and we will have to
settle this there.
Any advise on how to best proceed from here? I was hoping that
this would not reach court but it seems like this is the likely
outcome now
#Post#: 129209--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: August 31, 2026, 1:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
DCB Legal will pull out before the case reaches the hearing
stage.
Just keep an eye out for further Court directions from your
local court.
This may take a while.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page