Britannia Parking via DCB Legal, court claim 2025

Wobbly_Bus

My mum parked in a car park - date of parking 29/11/2024 - that we've been using for years which, unbeknownst to us a month prior, had been fitted with an ANPR camera with one sign round the corner which was unfortunately obscured by a building detailing the need to now pay to park.

We received a letter detailing the PCN from National Parking Control Group so I phoned them and asked if I could pay the ticket amount now, and was told they don't have the means to take payment over the phone. I was also told that I had a 10 minute grace period to pay when entering the car park, which is unfortunately standard for this shower I suppose.

According to the terms and conditions at the bottom of the sign it states that "parking charges are to be paid within 28 days". As it states "parking charges" and not parking fine, we decided to send two cheques for the amount owed, which was £3.50 and was sent within the 28 day period. About a fortnight later we received both cheques back in the post with an accompanying letter, saying something along the lines of, they're not able to take payment after the event, yet they're quite able to take the exorbitant amount they seek as a fine after the event.

I don't mind paying the parking the £1.50, even a £10 late fee, but the £100 they're seeking is absolutely criminal.

Since then we've received a letter from DCB Legal requesting payment of £170. The date of the letter issued was 16/01/25.

My mum is very upset and wants to pay, but after reading the marvelous DCB Legal discontinuation thread by Umkomass, I've managed to convince her that there's a way to beat this.

I just need a little help and pointing in the right direction.

Lastly thank you to everyone who posts here and helps. Without you there would be so many people lost against this scandalous practice.

Coupon-mad

My mum is very upset and wants to pay, but after reading the marvellous DCB Legal discontinuation thread by Umkomaas, I've managed to convince her that there's a way to beat this.

 Good! We are so glad you stopped her.

She must ignore that letter. Did you see the picture of that exact DCB letter in post 4 of the NEWBIES thread yet?

Sit tight. Do nothing except the below.

By going confidently into the 'ignore' stance, the only steps to take (because you MUST check every letter) are:

- mum must tell them if she moves house within 6 years.  NB: if she is a worrier, Mum could choose to give YOUR address for service instead, if you live at a different address.  Give that some thought. Means you could open all the letters for her and handle it for her, with her consent.

- Ignore the tedious £170 threatograms shown in pictures in the 4th post of the NEWBIES thread.

- Come back if you get a solicitor's LBC as per the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread.

Nobody pays a penny and no hearing is even needed in most cases. Search the forum and read a few cases as they are easy to beat by waiting for a claim form - it is easier than appealing!

There is no risk AT ALL in defending a court claim. No CCJ. No bailiffs. And that's the stage when she will win. No hearing, nothing.

Wobbly_Bus

Thank you so much for this, it's absolutely invaluable!

I'll be reading your reply to her later and will be allaying any fears that she still has.

Thorndorise

Absolutely what Coupon Mad said....this is from DCBL Ltd and not DCB Legal - it will be the latter that most likely will send a LbC after the standard 3 or 4 letter campaign from DCBL.

Read the newbies, but some additional titbits for you:

National Parking Control Group have absolutely no interest in cancelling this, they have handed it off to DCBL for collection. This is contrary to what people like the head of the IPC will say, but engagement with these private companies is by and large a waste of time, they want your money and mitigating circumstances are not money making for them.

The IPC is frankly awful, they do not mandate that if a site changes it's 'enforcement' then they must put up a sign letting regulars know about said change, instead they suggest they should which as far as both IPC and the DVLA is concerned is not enough to say that they actually should!

But, if the site has genuinely come under new management since the end of October, then it comes under the new single code of practice (governed by the one and own 2x ATAs), this means that the newer single code comes into play (and not the older v9 Code of the IPC), THAT new code DOES mandate the following.

3.4. Material changes – notices
Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. 

An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited,...

Signs must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions during which the controlled land may legitimately be accessed, at a height that takes account of whether the signs are intended to be viewed from the vehicle (including by headlight in the hours of darkness) or having left the vehicle by a driver on foot or in a wheelchair

NOTE 2: Where cameras are installed operators, are reminded of their obligations to inform motorists that personal data is being obtained and/or retained.

It appears that this sign was not really clear, and likely (with NPC) they won't have bothered putting the mandatory signage up.

Do you mind telling us the car park - and some of the sleuths on here will assist. Gather some evidence including photos if you can - also log into NPC's website as if you were going to pay (DON'T obviously) and you should be able to see what photos they took, take copies for your records.

For now, as CM says, ignore the powerless DCBL

 

Wobbly_Bus

Thorndorise said:

Absolutely what Coupon Mad said....this is from DCBL Ltd and not DCB Legal - it will be the latter that most likely will send a LbC after the standard 3 or 4 letter campaign from DCBL.

Read the newbies, but some additional titbits for you:

National Parking Control Group have absolutely no interest in cancelling this, they have handed it off to DCBL for collection. This is contrary to what people like the head of the IPC will say, but engagement with these private companies is by and large a waste of time, they want your money and mitigating circumstances are not money making for them.

The IPC is frankly awful, they do not mandate that if a site changes it's 'enforcement' then they must put up a sign letting regulars know about said change, instead they suggest they should which as far as both IPC and the DVLA is concerned is not enough to say that they actually should!

But, if the site has genuinely come under new management since the end of October, then it comes under the new single code of practice (governed by the one and own 2x ATAs), this means that the newer single code comes into play (and not the older v9 Code of the IPC), THAT new code DOES mandate the following.

3.4. Material changes – notices
Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. 

An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited,...

Signs must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions during which the controlled land may legitimately be accessed, at a height that takes account of whether the signs are intended to be viewed from the vehicle (including by headlight in the hours of darkness) or having left the vehicle by a driver on foot or in a wheelchair

NOTE 2: Where cameras are installed operators, are reminded of their obligations to inform motorists that personal data is being obtained and/or retained.

It appears that this sign was not really clear, and likely (with NPC) they won't have bothered putting the mandatory signage up.

Do you mind telling us the car park - and some of the sleuths on here will assist. Gather some evidence including photos if you can - also log into NPC's website as if you were going to pay (DON'T obviously) and you should be able to see what photos they took, take copies for your records.

For now, as CM says, ignore the powerless DCBL

 

Thank you for your detailed response.

I have since visited said car park and there is in fact a sign at both entrances. They are next to road signs so very easy to miss.

Wobbly_Bus

My mum received the first letter from DCBLegal.

Please advise what I should do next.

Thank you so much for your continued efforts and help.

Le_Kirk

Now you (your Mum) has the LOC, she/you goes to the second post of the NEWBIE sticky and reads from:-

Pre-action stage:

If you have a 'Letter of claim' or Letter Before Claim (LBC), a claim IS likely.

Wobbly_Bus

I sent the generic letter posted on the 2nd post of the Newbies forum and received a reply copied below:

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office.

The sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by our Client as a result of your non-payment. Our Client’s employees have spent time and material attempting to recover the debt. This is not our Client’s usual business and the resources could have been better spent in other areas of the business. Had you of paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so the amount due would not have increased.

Please note, the HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration manual’ (VATSC06140), which was last updated on 02 September 2020, confirmed that Parking Charges fall out of the scope of VAT.  

As per your request, your file will remain on hold for 30 days from the date of this email. After which, payment of the outstanding balance of £170.00 remains due. Failure to make payment will result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference.

Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -

• Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
• Sort Code: (Removed by Forum Team)
• Account Number: (Removed by Forum Team)

You must quote the correct case reference (///) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. 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.

Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to make payment over the telephone or online at

Kind Regards,

////////////////////////////

What is the next course of action that I should prepare for. They have stated that after the 30 days conclude a claim will be issued. Is it correct that I should read and familiarise myself with the Money Claim Online - Responding to a Summons? 

Again thank you to everyone that gives their time to help people like us.

Gr1pr

Nobody will receive a summons,  it's not a criminal matter,  so Responding to a claim   ( not a summons   )

The person receiving the letters may receive an N1SDT court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL,  issued by DCB Legal on behalf of the actual parking company,  the claimant,  in which case the defendant defends 

A lot of people here,  having received that letter,  have reported the lawyers to HMRC with possible VAT concerns 

Then it's a waiting game 

Wobbly_Bus

Coupon-mad said:

We didn't need to see their reply again!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81436667/#Comment_81436667

Always search before posting. You'll learn so much more from other threads exactly like yours.

  

Apologies, the last thing I wanted to do was to clutter and duplicate this forum. 

Thank you so much, and apologies again.

Wobbly_Bus

So I have filed my AoS within the time frame and now need to submit my defense. I have used jinxy2301's post as a template and just need points 2-7 checking. I will then use @Coupon-mad template for points 1,8-10 for the rest. I will then submit this via the MCOL.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.

3. The Defendant was parked in a disabled bay in their vehicle which is a registered disabled vehicle on 29/11/2024 March 2022. A blue badge was displayed when parked in a disabled bay whilst procuring essential items due to a medical emergency. The Defendant confirms the blue badge holder was in the vehicle whilst the blue badge was displayed and parked in a disabled bay due to a medical emergency. 

4. The blue badge holder suffers with a chronic long-term condition which affects the their ability to travel. On 29/11/2024, there was a genuine medical emergency and fluids were needed to take medication and stop their condition worsening.

5. As the Defendant’s vehicle is a registered disability vehicle and the occupant is a blue badge holder, the occupant has protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 (“the Act”). The Act has strict requirements and states that the occupant is entitled to reasonable adjustments. The Claimant has failed to implement any reasonable adjustments for the occupant which the Defendant believes is discrimination. 

6. The Claimant refers to the Contract in their Particulars of Claim. It is the Defendant’s understanding that their rights under the Act takes precedence over the Contract and the Defendant believes the Claimant is in breach of the Act. 

7. At the time of filing this Defence, the Defendant has made the Claimant aware of their vehicles status as a registered disability vehicle and has requested the PCN to be cancelled. To date, the Defendant has not received confirmation of cancellation and therefore believes that if the Claimant is to continue this claim, it would constitute discrimination against the Defendant and disabled occupant.

Thank you all again for your brilliant help