No need to panic. You still have time. If you follow the advice, this will eventually be struck out or discontinued.
With an issue date of 13th June, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 2nd July to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 16th 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 Britannia Parking Group Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
Britannia Parking Group 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 16.7.3(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 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)
DCB Legal have responded, but they have not addressed many of the key issues properly. They have attached some documents such as photographs of the car, images of signs, a site map, and copies of letters previously sent. However, their reply avoids the most important points.
They claim they got the keeper’s details from the DVLA and issued letters to that address. They also explain that ANPR cameras are used to monitor cars entering and leaving, and that the parking charges were issued because no valid permit or ticket was seen. But this is just a general explanation, not a proper answer to the specific questions that were asked.
They do not explain whether the parking charges are based on a contract or a breach of contract. They now say the charge is for a breach, which means it is a claim for damages. But they also say that the £70 add-on is not subject to VAT because parking charges are outside VAT. This is inconsistent. If the £70 is damages and not part of the original parking fee, then it is not exempt from VAT and their explanation makes no sense.
They have still not answered whether the notices they sent comply with the law (PoFA), they have not provided the landowner contract that allows enforcement, and they did not respond to the point about partial payments that were shown on Britannia’s system.
They also say they will not provide some of the documents requested, claiming that the requests are not relevant or are too much. But the law requires them to explain the claim properly, and they have failed to do so.
Lastly, they are now demanding £340 for two PCNs but are trying to treat them as one claim, which is not how the process should work. They did not issue a proper letter of claim for both PCNs before threatening court, which breaks the rules.
This shows they are not acting fairly or following proper legal procedures. A follow-up response is useful now to point this out again, create a written record, and help with an SRA complaint or court defence.
I suggest the following email response to DCB Legal:
Subject: Re: Your Letter of Claim dated 26 March 2025 – Your Ref: [Insert Reference]
Dear Sirs,
Re: PCN References: [Insert Both if Known]
Your Letter of Claim dated 26 March 2025
Your recent email response and enclosures
Thank you for your recent response.
I note that your latest letter and correspondence have still failed to properly address the key points raised in my letters dated 9 March and 13 April 2025. I reiterate my full denial of liability for any alleged debt, and any claim issued will be robustly defended.
Your client now appears to be claiming two PCNs as a combined debt of £340, but the correspondence prior to 26 March referred only to a single PCN for £170. At no point have you issued a separate, compliant Letter of Claim for the second PCN, nor have you itemised the two charges or provided a proper explanation or schedule of the alleged debts. This constitutes a clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. Your recent attempt to retrospectively consolidate both into one letter does not remedy that failure and will be raised with the court as a procedural irregularity.
In addition, your response fails to clarify the basis of the £70 surcharge per PCN. You now describe the claim as one for “damages for breach of contract” yet simultaneously assert that the £70 is exempt from VAT under HMRC guidance applying to parking charges. These two positions are incompatible. If the £70 is pleaded as damages rather than a contractual charge, it cannot be exempt under VATSC06140, and your client is not permitted to recover operational or enforcement costs for which there is no contractual basis, especially without evidence of any actual loss.
You have also failed to engage with the following requests:
• A clear explanation of whether your client seeks to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012;
• Evidence that the Notices to Keeper were compliant with PoFA;
• A copy of the landowner contract authorising enforcement;
• A copy of the privacy notice at the site, and the data-sharing agreement permitting the transfer of Keeper data to DCB Legal;
• Confirmation of partial payments shown in Britannia Parking’s own records, which you have conspicuously ignored.
Your response merely reiterates general information about ANPR and signage, rather than addressing the specific concerns I raised. If you consider that any of the documents I requested are “disproportionate,” I remind you that paragraph 5.1 of the Protocol requires a creditor to supply key documents so that the alleged debt can be understood and responded to in a meaningful way.
Furthermore, as your client's legal representative and an officer of the court, you are under a professional duty to ensure that proceedings are conducted fairly and in accordance with the law. By failing to advise your client on their obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and by advancing a position that is internally contradictory and arguably misleading in respect of VAT and the nature of the claimed charges, you risk not only undermining your client’s position but also calling your own conduct into question. If this matter proceeds, I will reserve the right to raise your firm's handling of this case with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, particularly in regard to your failure to act with integrity, uphold the rule of law, and advise your client against conduct which breaches civil procedure obligations.
Unless and until your client fully complies with the Pre-Action Protocol, I remain unable to provide any further response, and I reserve the right to rely on this correspondence in any costs application under CPR 27.14(2)(g), and to refer the matter to the SRA should court proceedings be improperly issued.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Postal Address]
Their first response talks about a PCN (£170) but then demands £340 without explaining the second charge—this lack of clarity breaches the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, which requires transparency regarding the debt(s).
They cite HMRC VAT guidance to justify adding £70, claiming it's outside the scope of VAT. But this misses the point: you are not liable for a third party’s operational costs, especially where there is no contractual basis for doing so.
They fail to engage with your request for clarification about the legal basis (contractual sum vs. damages), or whether the Notices to Keeper were PoFA compliant. These are critical points in any defence and their silence is notable.
Respond to their latest letter with the following:
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 26 March 2025
Your Reference: [Insert Ref from Letter]
PCN References: [Insert both if known]
I write in response to your latest Letter of Claim dated 26 March 2025, received recently.
Please note that I dispute the alleged debt in its entirety and will defend any claim issued. I also reiterate that my address for service remains:
[Your Full Address]
It is clear from your prior response (dated [insert date of their reply]) that you have failed to engage with key points raised in my correspondence of 9 March 2025, including:
- Whether the £70 add-on per PCN is net of VAT, and your client's contractual or legal basis for adding it;
- Whether the original charge is claimed as a contractual sum or damages for alleged breach;
- Your client’s failure to respond to my earlier representations, including proof of valid app payments made on the dates in question;
- Your failure to confirm whether the Notices to Keeper complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4;
- The nature of the signage relied upon, including a copy of the specific sign that allegedly formed the contract, and its location in relation to the vehicle.
Your email and subsequent letter confuse the matter by initially referring to one PCN and then demanding £340 without listing any schedule or individual PCN dates. This approach is opaque and in breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, which requires that the alleged debts be set out clearly and individually, with supporting evidence.
Accordingly, I again require:
1. A full breakdown of each alleged charge, with dates and locations of the alleged contraventions;
2. Copies of both Notices to Keeper (NtKs);
3. Copies of the photographs showing the vehicle and the signage upon which you rely;
4. A copy of the contract between your client and the landowner authorising enforcement;
5. An explanation of the legal basis of each charge (contractual sum or damages);
6. Clarification of whether your client relies on Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 to hold me liable as Keeper;
7. A copy of the Privacy Notice displayed at the location(s) as required by the UK GDPR and ICO guidance;
8. A copy of your client’s data-sharing agreement with Britannia Parking Ltd, authorising the transfer of Keeper data to DCB Legal.
Please be advised that your client is required to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules, and failure to provide the above documents will be brought to the attention of the court.
Unless and until this documentation is supplied, I am unable to provide a meaningful response to the Letter of Claim. Should a claim be issued without full compliance with the Protocol, I will ask the court to stay proceedings and to make a costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
Their Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) are not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA but that point is moot if the drivers identity has been revealed to them. There are other problems with the postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) because they have breached the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and thus are in breach of the KADOE contract with the DVLA and are therefore unlawfully handling your husbands date.
Of course they are not responding to you because nothing is addressed to you and unless your husband (the Keeper) formally transfers liability to you by giving them your name and address as the driver, then they are no obliged to respond to you. However, because there are PoFA failures, you do not want your husband identifying the driver as he has protection because as the NtK is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA, he cannot be liable. All appeals should have been done in his name, not yours.
Anyway, we are past that stage now and you have to deal with the Letter of Claim (LoC) and subsequent N1SDT Claim Form which is going to come, addressed to your husband. From now on, everything has to be done in his name. You cannot simply say that you are doing anything on his behalf.
But don't worry, this will never reach a hearing stage in court. It will be discontinued eventually, as long as the claim is defended, when it comes (it will). We can provide a suitable defence and further advice at the time.
For now, respond to the LoC with the following, in your husbands name:
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated [Date]
I refer to your Letter of Claim.
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]
Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.
I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.
Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:
1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.
2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.
I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[YOUR NAME]
send it to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself.
If DCB Legal issue a second, separate claim for the same alleged contravention for the same vehicle at the same location, that will also be defended with the additional defence of cause of action estoppel.