Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly Cancelled

Hi all, I’m looking for advice on a Parking Eye charge from March 2022 that has now reached the HM Courts & Tribunals Service stage.
My partner took our son to a swimming lesson at a Holiday Inn. The car is registered to me. The car park had recently started being managed by Parking Eye and users had to enter their registration at reception. My partner believes she did this, but may have entered one character incorrectly. Parking Eye issued a £100 charge, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.
I challenged it at the time through the swimming lesson provider, who escalated it to Holiday Inn. I provided proof that we were using the facilities and received WhatsApp confirmation from the swim provider saying the charge had been cancelled, so I believed the matter was closed.
In June 2023, I received a DCBL debt recovery letter for £170. I told them the charge had already been disputed and cancelled, and provided evidence, but they said they were only acting for debt recovery and would not review the evidence or consider an appeal. I also appealed directly to Parking Eye, but they said there was no appeal on their file. My assumption is that Holiday Inn may have told the swim company it would be cancelled but did not action it with Parking Eye. The hotel has since closed to the public, so I cannot contact them directly.
From September 2024, I started receiving correspondence from DCB Legal, along with further calls and letters from DCBL. I continued to engage and explain my position, but found the contact intimidating and stressful. I also made clear that both my partner and I suffer from stress and anxiety, and that the ongoing contact was having a significant impact on us, which made no difference to their approach.
On 14 July 2026, DCB Legal sent a Letter of Claim. I responded within the 30-day period, confirmed I would not be paying because I do not consider myself liable, and explained that I was engaging so there could be no suggestion I was ignoring the matter.
I have now received HMCTS papers dated 26 August 2026. The claimant is Parking Eye, with DCB Legal acting as solicitor. They are claiming £319.08, made up of a £234.08 claimed amount (£170 charge plus interest), a £35 court fee, and £50 legal costs. I need to submit my response by 15 September 2026.
My questions are: should I defend the claim; what should I include in my response; does the WhatsApp cancellation confirmation help; is there an issue with the lack of communication before the amount increased and was passed to debt recovery; and does it matter that I was not given a proper opportunity to appeal or have my evidence reviewed once DCBL became involved?
I would also appreciate advice on what happens next, as I have never been to court before and am nervous about the process. I am prepared to defend it because I do not feel I am in the wrong or that the correct process has been followed. I would also like to know whether anyone has successfully raised a counterclaim for the stress, anxiety, repeated debt collector contact, and potential time off work/travel costs if the matter goes to court.
Thanks in advance.

If you do some research by searching the forum, you will see that cases brought by DCB Legal are almost always discontinued before the court fee has to be paid, as long as they are properly defended.

Do not counterclaim in your response, because this will prevent DCB Legal from discontinuing which I believe you want them to do. Unless you want your “day in court”.

DCBL corectly state they have nothing to do with the details, they are debt collectors on commission to relieve you of your money. You should stop communicating with them in any way. If you understand how powerless they are, you might get less stressed, but their tactics are essentially to frighten you into paying.

If you’re going to defend, you need to come up with a defence which addresses the Notice to Keeper and the Particulars of Claim on the N1SDT claim form, and if you want advice you need to post them both here for us to see. Plus any appeal correspondence you might have sent. The driver entered into a contract by reading signs and by parking, and is now liable for a claim of breach of contract in some way, and it may be possible that the liability can be transferred to the registered keeper provided that certain provisions have been complied with - Parking Eye usually does so.

You can claim only limited expenses in the Small Claims track, such as loss of earnings and travel costs including parking fees. In the unlikely event that this ever reaches a court hearing.

You need to file a defence or an Acknowledgment of Service by 4pm on 14 September. If you file an AoS you have until 4pm on 28 September to file a defence.

Thanks so much for the advice, it’s been massively helpful and has made things a lot clearer.
Based on what you’ve said, I don’t want to raise a counterclaim if that risks complicating things or causing problems for me. The best outcome for me would be for Parking Eye/DCB Legal to discontinue or cancel the claim before it gets as far as court. That said, I do want to make sure I respond properly and put forward a strong defence if it does continue.
Could you please advise what I should do next? I’m happy to draft a defence and would really appreciate some help with the wording. I can attach the N1SDT claim form so you can see exactly what has been issued and what they are claiming.
Thanks again — I really appreciate the guidance.

How do I attach the document please? The attachments menu below isnt giving me a 'browse' option?

Guide: Posting Images

A copy of the Claim Form would be useful - we only need to see the page containing the Particulars of Claim, as these form the basis of the case against you. Please don't obscure any dates, but do obscure the MCOL password and case reference if there is one.

Thanks for the responses, here is the link to the claims form, any issues or you need more info please let me know -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-8gZCfgZpJJ6DRC03d1-w6QwQNfdeHxm/view?usp=sharing

I've drafted a defence with the help of AI so please let me know if this is along the right lines or I should take a different approach with it -

Defence

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all.

The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle referred to in the claim. The Defendant’s partner was using the vehicle on the material date when taking their son to a swimming lesson at the Holiday Inn premises. The swimming lesson was provided by a third-party swim company using the hotel’s pool facilities.

The vehicle was parked at the Holiday Inn because the Defendant’s partner and child were genuine users of the facilities. This was not a case of parking at the site for an unrelated purpose.

The Defendant understands that the car park had recently started being managed by ParkingEye and that users of the hotel facilities were required to enter their vehicle registration at reception. The Defendant’s partner believes she entered the vehicle registration at reception, although it is possible that one character may have been entered incorrectly.

The Defendant’s position is that any alleged breach, if one occurred, arose from a genuine attempt to comply with the registration process and/or a minor keying error. The Defendant does not accept that this gave rise to a valid or proportionate parking charge in the circumstances.

Following receipt of the original ParkingEye charge, issued on or around 14 March 2022, the Defendant challenged the matter through the swimming lesson provider, who escalated it to Holiday Inn. The Defendant provided evidence that the vehicle occupants were using the facilities legitimately.

The Defendant received confirmation by WhatsApp from the swimming lesson provider that the charge had been cancelled. The Defendant therefore reasonably believed that the matter had been resolved and closed.

The Defendant did not receive clear follow-up correspondence from ParkingEye confirming that the charge remained outstanding, that the cancellation had not been actioned, that the sum had increased, or that the matter would be escalated to debt recovery.

In June 2023, the Defendant received correspondence from DCBL seeking £170. The Defendant contacted DCBL within the stated timeframe and explained that the charge had already been disputed and that the Defendant understood it had been cancelled. The Defendant also provided evidence supporting that position.

DCBL stated that they were acting only in relation to debt recovery and would not review the evidence or consider an appeal. The Defendant was therefore not given a meaningful opportunity at that stage to resolve the matter or have the evidence properly reviewed.

The Defendant also contacted ParkingEye directly and sought to appeal the matter. ParkingEye responded to say that there was no appeal on their file. The Defendant’s understanding is that Holiday Inn may have informed the swimming company that the charge would be cancelled, but that this was not actioned with ParkingEye.

The Defendant is now unable to obtain further information directly from Holiday Inn because the hotel premises have since closed to the public.

From September 2024 onwards, the Defendant received correspondence from DCB Legal Solicitors, together with further calls and letters from DCBL. The Defendant continued to engage with the process and repeatedly explained that the charge was disputed and that the Defendant did not accept liability.

On 14 July 2026, the Defendant received a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal. The Defendant responded within the 30-day period, confirming that payment would not be made because liability was denied, and explaining that the Defendant was engaging with the process so there could be no suggestion that the matter was being ignored.

The Defendant denies that the Claimant has properly accounted for the previous cancellation confirmation, the evidence provided, or the Defendant’s attempts to resolve the matter.

The Defendant further denies that the Claimant is entitled to recover the additional sum claimed above the original parking charge. The claim now seeks £319.08, including a claimed amount of £234.08, a £35 court fee, and £50 legal costs. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of how the claimed amount has been calculated and why any additional debt recovery or interest sums are said to be recoverable.

The Defendant avers that any added debt recovery sum is not a genuine contractual fee incurred by the Claimant and is an attempt at double recovery. The Defendant understands that the usual parking charge already includes the Claimant’s operating and recovery costs.

The Defendant also puts the Claimant to strict proof that:

the signage at the site was clear, prominent, and capable of forming a contract;
the terms relating to registration entry and any charges for alleged keying errors were clearly brought to the attention of motorists;
the Claimant had authority from the landowner or lawful occupier to issue parking charges and pursue court proceedings in its own name;
the alleged breach occurred as pleaded;
the Defendant is liable as registered keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, if the Claimant seeks to rely on keeper liability;
the amount claimed is recoverable.

The Defendant will rely on the fact that the occupants of the vehicle were authorised users of the Holiday Inn facilities, that evidence of this was provided, and that the Defendant received confirmation that the charge had been cancelled.

The Defendant’s case is that it would be unfair and unreasonable for the Claimant to pursue a parking charge years later in circumstances where the Defendant reasonably believed the matter had been cancelled, engaged with the process throughout, and was not given a proper opportunity for the evidence to be reviewed once debt recovery action began.

For the reasons above, the Defendant denies the claim in full and asks the Court to dismiss it.

I would suggest using "driver" rather than "Defendant's partner".

It's incomprehensible as a defence - when a magistrate or judge reads this, what are the grounds on which you are defending this? At the very least, start with a summary of this.

Don't use "unfair". It's not about fairness or otherwise, it's about the law and the facts. A claim for breach of contract can be brought within six years.

You have hold a lot of the relevant facts, it's just about how you argue and present them I suggest.

Thanks for your response. Do you have any suggestions on the best route to take and what I should focus on to make a good defence? TIA

Thanks for your response. Do you have any suggestions on the best route to take and what I should focus on to make a good defence? TIA

I thought that was what I was doing!
Think about how someone reading this defence for the first time will understand it, and tailor your response accordingly, I suggest. Make it easy for them. No need to exclude things, but make your primary point first and back them up as required.
I found it hard or impossible to read to understand the points you were trying to make. Set these out clearly first.

Thanks for your suggestions it's been very helpful. Please see the new draft and any pointer would be appreciated -

Draft Defence
1. Denial of liability
1.   The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any relief at all.
2.   The Defendant’s position is that the claim should be dismissed because the vehicle occupants were genuine authorised users of the hotel facilities, the driver made a genuine attempt to comply with the parking requirements, the Defendant received confirmation that the charge had been cancelled and reasonably relied on that confirmation, and the sums now claimed are disputed.
2. Background
1.   The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
2.   On the material date in March 2022, the driver attended a swimming lesson at a Holiday Inn hotel. The lesson was operated by a third-party swim company using the hotel’s facilities.
3.   The vehicle occupants were genuine users of the hotel facilities and understood they were permitted to park, subject to entering the vehicle registration at reception.
4.   The driver believes the registration was entered at reception, but it may have involved a minor keying error affecting a single character.
5.   If the claim is based on an alleged registration input issue, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of the registration logs from the material date, including whether a near-match registration was entered.
3. Cancellation of the charge
1.   Following receipt of the original parking charge, the Defendant challenged the matter through the swimming lesson provider, who escalated it to Holiday Inn.
2.   Evidence was provided showing that the vehicle occupants were legitimate users of the premises.
3.   The Defendant subsequently received WhatsApp confirmation from the swimming lesson provider that the charge had been cancelled.
4.   The Defendant reasonably relied on that confirmation, believed the matter had been resolved, and therefore took no further action at that time.
5.   The Defendant will rely on that cancellation confirmation and the supporting evidence.
4. Subsequent correspondence
1.   The Defendant did not receive correspondence confirming that the cancellation had not been actioned, that the charge remained outstanding, that the charge had increased, or that the matter would be escalated to debt recovery.
2.   In June 2023, the Defendant received correspondence from DCBL seeking £170.
3.   The Defendant contacted DCBL, explained that the charge had previously been disputed and cancelled, and supplied supporting evidence.
4.   DCBL stated that they were acting only for debt recovery purposes and would not review the evidence or consider an appeal.
5.   The Defendant subsequently contacted ParkingEye directly and sought to appeal the charge. ParkingEye responded stating that no appeal was recorded on their file.
6.   The Defendant’s position is that ParkingEye’s later response does not undermine the earlier cancellation confirmation received via the swimming provider/Holiday Inn route, which the Defendant reasonably relied upon.
5. Additional sums claimed
1.   The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to recover the additional sums claimed above the original parking charge.
2.   The claim seeks £234.08 before court fees and legal costs, despite the original parking charge being £100. The Defendant understands this includes the £170 charge plus interest and/or additional sums.
3.   The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of how the claimed amount has been calculated, the contractual basis relied upon, and whether all sums claimed are legally recoverable.
4.   The Defendant further denies that any additional debt recovery costs form part of any recoverable contractual charge and avers that any such sum is an attempt at double recovery.
6. Strict proof required
1.   The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that clear and prominent signage existed at the site, the relevant contractual terms were properly communicated, the Claimant had authority from the landowner to issue parking charges and pursue litigation, the alleged breach occurred as pleaded, and the Claimant is entitled to rely upon keeper liability if such reliance is asserted.
7. Conclusion
1.   The Defendant’s case is that the vehicle occupants were legitimate users of the premises, the driver attempted to comply with the registration process, the Defendant received and relied upon confirmation that the charge had been cancelled, and the Defendant disputes both liability and the additional sums claimed.
2.   Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed.

Can we see the evidence pl.

The Notice to Keeper - THE key document. Absent a compliant NTK, no liability arises, so let's start with this.

I provided proof that we were using the facilities and received WhatsApp confirmation from the swim provider saying the charge had been cancelled,

Pl post.

Have you engaged with the 'swim provider' since 2022?

In June 2023, I received a DCBL debt recovery letter for £170.

But the NTK must have been dated March/April 2022. Was this the first follow-up? If so, it's very, very unusual.

As I read it, you did not engage with PE at the NTK stage but instead followed an extra-procedural route to get the charge cancelled via the 'swim provider' and Holiday Inn. If HI were the landowner, and therefore PE's principal, then this is important info.

I suggest gathering your objective facts and then putting together a supporting narrative. 

Hi, thanks for your response. I have attached all evidence here so please review and let me know your thoughts - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19NMnhEl4zjCuGdHaXZ3FCap6-aIDzfVZ?usp=sharing

An interesting point I came across when collecting evidence that I've not previously thought about but might be very important, is that I don't think I've ever had a physical letter from Parking Eye delivered to me. My vehicle was a company car so the NTK came through the lease company Novuna via email, it's in the evidence attached dated 14-03-22, and then I have the letter sent from Novuna to PE dated 22-03-22 providing my details and giving authorisation to communicate with me. So to answer your question, since the initial NTK which was received from my lease company, I've not received any follow up correspondence from PE, hence why I am challenging it.

To address your other points,

I have attached the WhatsApp response from the Swim company owner, and a letter he provided from me confirming my use of the hotel facilities. This letter was provided following me receiving the DCBL notice as I didn't need it for the original appeal that was done through the Swim company.

To expand on that point and my initial appeal, yes it was done through the Swim company directly to the Holiday Inn, the landowner and not to PE, as this was the guidance we had from the swim company. PE has only been introduced to the hotel carpark in Oct 2021 and we were advised there was a 6mths period we could challenge any fines, this was verbal from the swim company. Hence why when the notice came through I challenged through them and not PE directly. The swim company spoke with the Holiday Inn directly and I was advised it was cancelled. This happened to a number of the parents attending lessons.

The last contact I had with the swim company was them providing the letter confirming I was using the hotel facilities. Another detail for this that I touch on previously but not in detail, is that the hotel closed to the public in 2023 and now houses refugees, so both myself and the swim company have been unable to contact them or attend the premises to follow this up or get any further information on what action was previously taken. 

Stop drafting, you're wasting time and effort.

My vehicle was a company car so the NTK came through the lease company Novuna via email,

My goodness! A completely different light on the whole issue.

One step at a time:

To whom is the NTK you posted dated 14 March 2022 addressed?

Sorry...

Its addressed to the lease company.

I've been racking my brain trying to remember if I received a letter or not but genuinely can't remember. I'm normally pretty good at keep them for evidence, I have all other letters so makes me think I didn't.

I know I definitely didn't receive any follow up stating the fine was still outstanding or due to progress to debt collection or I would've followed it up.

Back to square 1.

You are on completely the wrong tack as regards any claim against the keeper.

But you have to acknowledge service, so at least engage with this procedure.

Your defence:
You were not the driver;
You were the hirer but cannot be considered to be the 'keeper' under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch.

Thanks for your advice, really helpful.

Would there be any repercussions for my partner who was the driver?

How is this for a defence -

Alternative Draft Defence – Driver/Keeper Liability Only
1. Defence
1.   The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any relief at all.
2.   The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on the material date.
3.   The vehicle was a company/lease vehicle. The original notice was not sent directly to the Defendant, but to the lease company.
4.   The lease company later provided the Defendant’s details to ParkingEye. The Defendant was therefore identified, at most, as the hirer/user of the vehicle.
5.   The Defendant does not admit to being the keeper for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
6.   As the Defendant was not the driver, the Claimant can only pursue the Defendant if it has fully complied with the statutory requirements required to transfer liability from the driver to a keeper or hirer.
7.   The Claimant is put to strict proof that it complied with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including the requirements applicable to hire vehicles.
8.   This includes, but is not limited to, strict proof that all notices and documents required by Schedule 4 were served correctly on the Defendant within the relevant statutory timescales.
9.   The Claimant is also put to strict proof that any Notice to Hirer/Keeper and any subsequent correspondence relied upon were properly served on the Defendant after the lease company provided the Defendant’s details.
10.   The Defendant does not recall receiving direct correspondence from ParkingEye confirming that the charge remained outstanding, that any cancellation had not been actioned, that the amount had increased, or that the matter would be escalated.
11.   If the Claimant has failed to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Defendant cannot be held liable as keeper or hirer.
12.   Accordingly, the Defendant denies liability and respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed.

TIA