With an issue date of 29th May, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 17th June to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 1st July to submit your defence.
If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order that goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.
When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF attachment and send as an attachment in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of IPark Services Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
IPark Services Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
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 for the defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0)
Respond with:
Subject: Re: Outstanding VAT Query – Debt Recovery Fee
Dear Sirs,
I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 23 April 2025.
Your latest response again fails to engage with the specific and legitimate query raised regarding the VAT treatment of the £70 “Debt Recovery” fee you or your client seek to add.
For absolute clarity:
• I have never disputed that parking charges are outside the scope of VAT.
• My question has consistently and solely related to the additional £70 fee imposed for alleged debt recovery work.
• Debt recovery services are a taxable supply under HMRC guidance, and VAT treatment applies independently of the original debt.
You have now confirmed that "no VAT has ever been applied to the outstanding balance." I therefore infer from your repeated refusal to answer the direct questions that the £70 fee is either unlawfully levied, or that you have absorbed any VAT liability without informing me.
Your failure to provide clear particulars in breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(e)) and the ongoing evasion of simple, material questions will be relied upon in any Defence and Application to Strike Out should proceedings be issued.
Further, I reserve the right to:
• Report this matter to HMRC for potential tax irregularities regarding the VAT treatment of your services.
• Refer your conduct to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) as an example of unreasonable and non-transparent pre-action behaviour.
Unless you provide a full and substantive response to the outstanding queries within 14 days, I shall consider this pre-action correspondence phase to have been exhausted due to your persistent failure to comply with your professional duties.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Address for Service]
DCB Legal’s latest reply continues to evade the core VAT question, reiterates irrelevant points about the VAT status of the underlying parking charge, and makes no attempt to engage with the direct queries regarding the VAT treatment of their own service fee—the £70 "debt recovery" charge.
Send the following by email to ArchieC@dcblegal.co.uk and CC info@dcblegal.co.uk and yourself.
Subject: Re: Alleged Parking Charge – VAT Status of Added Fee
Dear Mr Kerrigan,
I refer to your email dated 25 March 2025.
Your repeated reference to the HMRC manual VATSC06140 is misplaced and unhelpful. As made abundantly clear in my previous correspondence, I am not questioning the VAT treatment of the parking charge itself. My query relates specifically to the £70 surcharge you or your client have applied for alleged “debt recovery” services.
This is a charge for services rendered by you or your client’s agent—i.e., a business-to-business service, where the VAT treatment is fundamentally different from the underlying parking tariff.
For the avoidance of doubt, I again require the following:
1. Is the £70 fee inclusive or exclusive of VAT?
2. If VAT applies, why is it being passed on to me—a consumer—when your firm (or the agent providing the service) is the VAT-registered business client that is liable to account for it?
Your continued refusal to address this specific and valid concern will be brought to the attention of the court, HMRC, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority as part of a complaint regarding unfair and misleading conduct under the guise of debt recovery. The transparency of the costs and your obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(e)) remain unmet.
Given that your correspondence has come from a “Litigation Support Associate” rather than a legally qualified professional, it is perhaps understandable that the questions I have raised—concerning VAT liability, recoverable costs, and HMRC compliance—have not yet been answered. If you are not qualified to address these matters, I suggest that you escalate this file to a solicitor or suitably qualified person within your organisation who can properly respond, particularly as you continue to assert an intention to litigate.
Unless and until you provide a full and substantive response to the questions posed, I do not consider this matter to be appropriately clarified or closed. I remain fully prepared to defend any claim and to seek costs for unreasonable conduct, should this matter proceed to litigation.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Address for Service]
Reply with the following:
Dear Sirs,
Your response regarding VAT is inadequate and evasive. You have ignored the direct question posed in my Letter of Claim response and instead provided an irrelevant reference to the VAT treatment of parking charges.
To be clear, the question relates to the additional £70 sum you are seeking, which you refer to as a "Debt Recovery" fee. This is your fee, not the parking charge itself, and as a service provided by you, it is subject to VAT. The HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration Manual’ (VATSC06140) you cited is irrelevant to this point, as it concerns the underlying parking charge, not your own recoverable costs.
I repeat the question:
• Is the £70 fee net of or inclusive of VAT?
• If VAT applies, why are you attempting to charge me the VAT element when HMRC guidance confirms that VAT on services provided to a business cannot be charged to the consumer?
I require a proper response addressing the specific VAT query, not a template reply avoiding the issue.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
I suggest you respond to the LoC with the following as a PDF letter attached to an email addressed to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself:
DCB Legal Ltd
Direct House
Greenwood Drive
Manor Park
Runcorn, Cheshire
WA7 1UG
By email to: info@dcblegal.co.uk
[date]
Re: Letter of Claim dated 31st December 2024 – Alleged Parking Charge Ref(s): [Insert Reference]
Dear Sirs,
I refer to your Letter of Claim dated 31st December 2024.
Address for Service
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:
[YOUR ADDRESS]
Disputed Debt
The alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.
Observations on (lack of) Professionalism
Having read your Letter of Claim, I must express disbelief that this was prepared by a supposedly professional legal firm. The lack of detail, adherence to basic Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) standards, and apparent misunderstanding of your obligations suggests that the author of this letter either lacks the necessary expertise or failed to consult a responsible adult within your organisation before issuing it. If such an individual exists at DCB Legal, I recommend you seek their input before proceeding further to avoid further (legal) embarrassment.
Deficiencies in Your Letter of Claim
Your Letter of Claim is deficient in several respects and fails to meet the requirements of the PAP:
1. Insufficient Particulars:
• No clear identification of the location of the alleged contravention.
• No evidence provided to substantiate the claim, such as photographs of the vehicle, the signage, or the terms alleged to have been breached.
2. Lack of Transparency on Costs:
• The sum claimed includes an unexplained additional £70. Does this represent a “Debt Recovery” fee, or is it an arbitrary amount added for other purposes?
• If it is a “Debt Recovery” fee, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If it includes VAT, I would like to understand why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to fund your client’s VAT liability.
3. No Explanation of the Basis for the Claim:
• Is the principal sum being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
• No evidence has been provided to support your client’s authority to operate or issue charges at the site in question.
These glaring omissions suggest either a fundamental misunderstanding of the PAP or an intentional disregard for it.
Comments on Unlawful Practices
Adding arbitrary amounts to the alleged debt is not permitted. It is well-established that parking companies cannot inflate claims beyond the fixed costs recoverable in the county court. Your client’s practices of adding unjustifiable sums and attempting to pass them off as legitimate have been described by the Government as “extorting money from motorists.” This issue, along with the unethical VAT practices you appear to be supporting, will be highlighted to the court and HMRC should proceedings be issued.
Questions Requiring Specific Answers
Under the PAP, I require specific answers to the following:
1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee?
2. If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT?
3. Regarding the principal sum: Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
I caution you against boilerplate or dismissive responses, as I will rely on any failure to provide clear answers in my defence.
Final Position
I remind you of your duty under the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Standards and Regulations to act with integrity and not to mislead either the court or the public. You would do well to consider this duty when representing clients such as I Park Services Ltd, whose conduct and practices are already widely regarded as questionable.
Your Letter of Claim is a textbook example of non-compliance with the PAP. Should you proceed to issue a claim without rectifying these deficiencies, I will seek to have it struck out as improperly served and will request costs due to your unreasonable behaviour.
I trust that, upon reflection, DCB Legal will see fit to withdraw this claim until such time as it can be presented in a manner that complies with the standards expected of legal professionals. If no such professionals exist within your organisation, I suggest seeking external advice to avoid further embarrassment.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]