Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: aland on November 19, 2025, 10:56:51 pm

Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: aland on March 09, 2026, 05:26:34 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.
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: aland on March 09, 2026, 04:36:19 pm
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."
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: jfollows on March 09, 2026, 03:51:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: aland on March 09, 2026, 01:25:32 pm
Yes I have submitted an AoS
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: jfollows on March 09, 2026, 01:23:12 pm
At the very least, please confirm you have submitted an AoS in order to give you longer to submit your defence.
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: aland on March 09, 2026, 01:16:51 pm
Would be very grateful if someone could help me with advice on what I should put on my defence when submitting this.

I dont have any experience with this, and I am looking for some guidance through the process to try and beat this.
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: aland on February 21, 2026, 03:03:16 pm
Ok great thank you,
Any thoughts as to what I should put in the dispute/defence?
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: jfollows on February 21, 2026, 01:20:01 pm
You should submit online.
With a date of 17 February on the form you either need to submit a defence or Acknowledgement of Service by 8 March.
If you do the latter you have to submit a defence by 22 March.

Dispute the whole claim and do not counterclaim.
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: aland on February 21, 2026, 12:54:49 pm
Hello, I am just bumping this thread. Any help is greatly appreciated. Any suggestions on how I should respond with my defence? Should i submit this online on MCOL or via paper?
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: aland on February 19, 2026, 06:47:48 pm
Here is the link for the claim letter

https://pdflink.to/71826002/
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: DWMB2 on February 19, 2026, 06:02:27 pm
Please show us. We cannot advise on particulars of claim that we have not seen.
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: aland on February 19, 2026, 05:01:57 pm
I have now received a claim form from DCB via HM courts.
It gives me the option to dispute the whole claim or make a counterclaim, and also the option to request 28 days to prepare defence rather than 14 days it gives by default.
Would appreciate advice on best way to proceed? Obviously I will be disputing the claim, but any information on next steps - should i request the 28days, what should i put in the defence, next steps would be appreciated.
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: DWMB2 on January 15, 2026, 06:49:02 pm
Unless you're looking to pay £200, I'd be minded to leave them to it and let them issue a claim.
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: aland on January 09, 2026, 09:19:51 pm
I am bumping this thread to see if anyone can give some advice on the latest email from DCB legal in the previous post.
Thanks
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: aland on January 07, 2026, 08:38:16 pm
I have now received the email response below from DCB legal.

They have included the evidence as attachment

https://ibb.co/Cq3Sz9y (please click on load full resolution to see the file properly)

Any advice on best way to proceed? Should I respond? Or wait it out until the letter of claim? Or settle with them?


-----------------------------------

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office dated 23/11/2025.
We now respond to the same as follows.

Please find evidence requested attached. If there are any documents that you have requested, but that are not attached, it is because we have deemed the request to be disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute. We respectfully draw your attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to act reasonably and proportionately.

The amount owed is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location to ensure compliance with the clearly displayed terms and conditions. However, in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis, it was found, both at County Court and Court of Appeal level, that appealing a Parking Charge on the basis that the amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss is, in fact, not a successful legal defence.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS
 
To assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our Client may be prepared to settle this case. I can confirm our Client would be agreeable to your offer of  £200.00 in full and final settlement of this Claim. The current outstanding balance is £340.00
 
Should you be agreeable to this offer, please confirm the same within 30 days. Failure to make payment may result in the matter progressing to the next stage. 

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.

We would ask that you kindly furnish us with your most up to date telephone number and email address, this can be emailed to us at info@dcblegal.co.uk.

Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to make payment over the telephone or online at https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.

 

Kind Regards,

Litigation Support Team

DCB Legal Ltd
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: aland on November 23, 2025, 03:12:12 pm
Thank you, I have submitted the email above and will keep you updated of any response
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: b789 on November 23, 2025, 03:00:09 am
They will issue a claim. Their LoC is a boilerplate template. It does not comply with the PAPDC and this can be used against them when they eventually discontinue.

DCB Legal have no intention to litigate all their way to a trial. They will issue an N279 Notice of Discontinuance just before they are required to pay the trial fee.

You are many months away from that point. For now, just go through the advised process.
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: jfollows on November 22, 2025, 08:06:25 pm
Not replying to a formal Letter of Claim could be viewed badly by the court. You need to play the game properly, be seen to do so, and be able to show that you have done so. For a few minutes of your time it’d be stupid not to do so.
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: aland on November 22, 2025, 06:57:33 pm
Also interestingly, the letter from dcblegal has a mis-spelling of my surname. Looking at the v5c, it looks like the dvla has mis read my writing when I filled in the ownership form and misread ni for m. So this has transferred to the letter dcblegal have sent to me.

Obviously I will contact dvla to correct the v5c. But the question is, should I correct dcblegal when I sign off the reply letter above?
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: aland on November 22, 2025, 06:48:59 pm
That’s great, thank you for that.

Just out of interest - what is the benefit in replying at all? Does dcblegal not usually just ignore the reply in any case?

Also, some of the other websites suggest writing to the merchant at the shopping park eg M&S, Sainsbury’s etc. is there any point in doing that at this stage?
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: b789 on November 20, 2025, 10:42:22 am
Send the following email to DCB Legal at info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:

Quote
Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim Ref: [reference number]

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client places reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please provide:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012 liability.

2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between your client and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s) in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with a site plan showing the sign locations.

3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.

4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to litigate.

5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes VAT.


I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own obligation under paragraph 6(b).

If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and will raise a formal complaint to the SRA regarding your conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).

Until your client complies and provides the requested material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling provision of the above.

Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will only respond by email or post.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]

If you follow all the advice you receive here, you will not be paying a penny to ECP. I suggest you also do a search of the forum and follow other similar ECP claims issued by DCb Legal to understand the process.
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: aland on November 19, 2025, 11:28:30 pm
sorry i couldnt see how to attach the letter initially.
here is a link to the letter.
https://ibb.co/Jwb4qZzG
https://ibb.co/svKdJtZL
Title: Re: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: DWMB2 on November 19, 2025, 10:58:25 pm
Chances of winning this if it goes to court?
Given that DCB Legal are involved, your chances of them discontinuing just before it reaches a hearing are very high.

However, you've given us almost no information upon which to base our advice. Please show us this letter.
Title: DCB legal letter of claim for private parking charges
Post by: aland on November 19, 2025, 10:56:51 pm
Hi,
Looking for some advice regarding how to handle a letter I received recently.
Got this ‘letter of intent’ from dcb legal acting on behalf of euro car park for 2 parking charges I received back in 2022. I had letters on and off around then, then they stopped for a while and recently got this letter.

Thoughts on best way to respond? Should I ignore them, or do I have to reply back? And if so, any advice on how to respond?

Chances of winning this if it goes to court?