There are a ton of other DCB Legal issued claims you can search on the forum to see what happens when. just have a read of a few to see the answers given at each stage.
Try "DCB Legal defence" as your search term (include the apostrophes)
Yes, you will receive a letter saying that they have reviewed your defence and their client intends to proceed and a copy of their N180 DQ.
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.
Just do a search of the forum for any other DCB Legal Letter of Claim (LoC). Look for any very recent ones and follow the same advice given in those.You have to follow the process, for which you will get advice here, and DCB Legal will discontinue in the face of your doing so before having to pay the court fee.
You will eventually receive a claim anyway and as long as you defend it with the same advice in any of those threads, you wil not be paying a penny.
Subject: Your Letter of Claim – Ref: 711200292970SMP / Parking Charge Ref: TC60726593
Dear Ms Marth,
Thank you for your correspondence dated [insert date].
I dispute the alleged debt. Your reply letter does not comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC) and does not engage with the substantive issues raised. For clarity:
1) PAPDC non-compliance
Your reply fails to provide the information and documents required to enable me to understand, investigate, and respond to the claim:• You do not clearly identify the cause of action (breach of contract / contractual sum / trespass / damages).
• The location details are incomplete in your letter, and no site plan is provided.
• You have not provided the contract/authority between your client and the landowner/occupier.
• You have not provided the terms relied upon (signage text as it stood on the material date) nor evidence that the terms were adequately brought to the attention of motorists.
• You have not provided the Notice to Driver/Notice to Keeper and any subsequent notices, nor evidence of compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sch. 4 (PoFA) if keeper liability is alleged.
Under PAPDC para. 2.1(c) and paras. 3.1 & 5.1, please now provide the following within 30 days so that the matter can be properly considered:
[indent[1. The full, unredacted landowner authority/contract in force on 08/05/2021, showing your client’s standing to issue charges and litigate.
2. The NTD/NTK and all subsequent correspondence, with proof of posting and dates, and a statement of PoFA compliance (or confirmation you rely only on driver liability).
3. Machine/payment data for the entire day (or the relevant time window), including VRM inputs, synchronisation settings, and any partial/mistyped VRMs; plus any ANPR/patrol logs relied upon.
4. Maintenance and ANPR calibration/accuracy logs for the period spanning 08/05/2021.
5. A full breakdown of the sum claimed, identifying each head of loss and when/why it was added.
6. Your client’s grace and consideration period policy in force on the material date and evidence of adherence to it.[/indent]
Pending receipt of the above, the PAPDC clock is not running. Please confirm the matter is placed on hold for at least 30 days after you provide the complete response and documents.
2) “Genuine pre-estimate of loss”
Your letter asserts that the amount represents a “genuine pre-estimate of loss.” That is wrong in law. Since ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, charges are assessed under the penalty/legitimate interest test, not on a pre-estimate of loss basis. Please ensure future correspondence is accurate.
3) Added “debt recovery” fees
Any sum added on top of the core charge (typically £100) for so-called “debt recovery” is unrecoverable and has been treated by courts as an abuse of process. Recent judicial commentary and decisions have repeatedly disallowed such add-ons. The current Private Parking Single Code of Practice (2025) also prohibits adding extra recovery fees beyond the core charge (save for fixed court fees/interest if awarded). I will invite the court to strike out or disallow any such add-ons.
4) Keeper liability / driver identity
Unless and until you demonstrate strict PoFA compliance, no keeper liability arises. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not admit to being the driver, and you have no evidence of driver identity.
5) Next steps
Once you have complied with the PAPDC and supplied the documents requested, I will provide a substantive response within 30 days. If you issue proceedings without remedying these defects, I will draw this correspondence to the court’s attention on the question of conduct and costs.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[Email]
Does 'Claude' always write like it's generating clickbait content for an online tabloid? ;D
Generally the case, yes, stuff from DCBL as debt collectors can be ignored but a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal needs a response. It will also need a defence filing and, therefore, anything you can dig out, especially the original PCN, will be useful for this.