PCN money claim from DCB Legal

Popcorn_addict

Hello everyone.

OK, so I'm looking to defend a money claim lodged by DCB Legal on behalf of First Parking.

The PCN was for an alleged parking violation of staying in the University of St Mark & St Johns Sports Centre car park without payment.

The key points of the defence that I am using are:

• The NTK was never received. 
• The signage at the car park was insufficient.
• The payment machines in the car park were taped up with notices that they were not in use.
• Additionally, the car park is next to another car park which is also owned by the University of St Mark & St John which, when the alleged violation happened, was free to park in.

The car was parked in the car park on a weekend morning when a children's football tournament was being attended. Instruction received from tournament organisers suggested that parking would be free and it would have been had the car been parked in an adjacent car park that was almost empty. 

At this point it is worth noting that the driver of the car is not known either to the claimant or defendant as so much time has passed neither person who could have been driving that day actually remembers who was.

As noted above, the signage was unclear about what payment was required and the payment machines taped up as they were out of use creating an impression that there was no need to pay.

There was no NTK attached to the windscreen and instead First Parking allegedly sent it postally as they had caught the car on CCTV/ANPR. It is worth noting that signage around the use of ANPR was almost non-existent and would liekly have been something I brought up in any POPLA appeal.

However, the NTK was not received. Accordingly, the opportunity to appeal expired and the first I found out about the whole thing was upon receipt of a letter from DCBL. Initially this letter was ignored as it referenced a parking notice that had never been received and appeared at first to be a scam. Anyway, I emailed DCBL and asked for further information of which they gave scant outline of the alleged offence. They also noted that it was no longer possible to appeal to POPLA, something that I strongly believe I would have been successful at.

Further email correspondence then saw me ask for the following:

1. I am entitled to a 2 week period to appeal any notice of parking contravention. You claim that notice was served that would enable that statutory right. Please provide evidence of sending/receipt of that notice.
2. I have still only been provided with basic details of the alleged contravention. You have not provided any evidence of the allegation. Please provide that accordingly.
3. Your letter suggests that you will be recommending that your client, First Parking LLP, begin legal action. Can you confirm whether your recommendation includes notice to them that their alleged PCN was never received? If so, what has been their response? If you have not advised them of this, why not?
4. You have noted that the location of the alleged contravention was The University of St Mark and St John Sports Centre. Please advise me of the contact details of the landowner, on whose behalf your client acts, so that I may contact them directly as is my intention.
5. The delay in receipt of your physical letter, and the lack of receipt of the alleged PCN, suggests there is an issue in either the sending or receiving of correspondence. Whilst I have not noticed issues with correspondence from other people, I do not like to pre-suppose the reasons behind this but it certainly indicates that traditional mail is ineffective for this matter. Accordingly, please ensure future correspondence is sent electronically, using this email address, so that both parties have a record of all matters discussed. For this reason, I am also disinclined to correspond via telephone as per your request as that is not a medium that I can easily record.

In return, I received some emails asking for a telephone call and then the following:

"We are instructed by our Client, First Parking LLP to recover the outstanding balance in relation to the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to you, PCN reference xxxxxxx.

As we have previously explained, the timeframe in which to submit an appeal expired prior to our instruction; also contacting the landowner at this stage will not resolve the matter. We are not privvy to who the landowner is, therefore, we are unable to confirm this information.

At the time of the contravention, First Parking LLP applied to the DVLA for the details of the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle. Your name and address were provided. First Parking LLP therefore issued correspondence to you at that address. Please find attached a copy of said correspondence.  

All correspondence is sent via Royal Mail, and we note that you have received DCBL's letter which has been issued to the same address of which our Client wrote to you at.

As the person named by our client, you remain liable for the outstanding balance. If you would like to discuss this further, please provide your telephone number and one of our case managers will contact you."

That to and fro basically got us nowhere with the case being passed to DCB Legal (what is with the naming of these two (essentially the same) companies?) who eventually have lodged a money claim. 

I have responded with the AoS on 24 January and am now trying to formulate the defence but am a little unsure as to how much of the above should be included at this stage and how much should be saved for any necessary witness statement. I appreciate that is probably quite a rookie question but I guess I am a rookie.

Any help that can be provided by this amazing community would be very gratefully received.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with all your personal detail hidden of course.

'SoA'??? Have you perhaps filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Popcorn_addict

Hi Keith. 

Thanks for your kind welcome.

The issue date on the claim form is 10 Jan 2025.

The particulars of claim are:

Particulars of Claim 

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle xxxxxx at The University Of ST Mark And ST John Sports Centre, Plymouth PI68bh.
2. The PCN(s) were issued on 23/06/2024
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Not Paid For The Full Duration Of Stay Or Not Registering Your Vehicle
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012 Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £110 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.02 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees 

You are quite right that I did mean Acknowledgement of Service, which would have been AoS. I'm not doing a great job here am I? lol. I've amended my first post to make it clearer. The acknowledgement was lodged on 24/01/2025.

I think that's everything.

Coupon-mad

"the signage was unclear about what payment was required and the payment machines taped up as they were out of use creating an impression that there was no need to pay."

In view of the above clear and obvious knowledge, I strongly advise you to drop this apparent untruth:

"the driver of the car is not known either to the claimant or defendant as so much time has passed neither person who could have been driving that day actually remembers who was."

 DO NOT GO THERE! If the Defendant was driving, they admit that at the end of para 2.

Then para 3 is the usual new standard one for 2025, seen in the thread by @shahib_02

Then add a para 3.1. saying that the signage was unclear about what payment was required and the payment machines taped up as they were out of use creating an impression that there was no need to pay. No PCN was affixed to the car or received by post. Accordingly, the opportunity to appeal expired and the first the Defendant knew about it was upon receipt of a letter from DCBL. This letter was in intimidating language and demanded an extortionate sum of money. It was quite rightly ignored, as it referenced a PCN that had never been received and the letter bore all the hallmarks of a scam. The Defendant did not ignore the Letter Before Claim and disputed the demand, asking for a POPLA Code. This was flat out refused, despite the BPA Code of Practice (2024) requiring 'debt' recovery to be paused and the PCN re-issued for appeal, in cases where the motorist has not received a PCN.

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

Then change the start of para 4 (from the Template Defence) to say that it will be common ground that the only potential loss is the £1 (or whatever) fee but any supposed contract around tariffs was frustrated by the Claimant's decision to tape up the payment machine. And persuasive case law has confirmed that parking firms ARE required to show loss in a Payment-based car park: in a parking appeal heard on 28 January 2025 at Winchester County Court, Her Honour Judge Brownhill provided crucial guidance on key issues including the requirement to prove actual loss in parking cases involving a tariff, and the importance of clear and unambiguous terms.

Popcorn_addict

Coupon-mad said:

"the signage was unclear about what payment was required and the payment machines taped up as they were out of use creating an impression that there was no need to pay."

In view of the above clear and obvious knowledge, I strongly advise you to drop this apparent untruth:

"the driver of the car is not known either to the claimant or defendant as so much time has passed neither person who could have been driving that day actually remembers who was."

 DO NOT GO THERE! If the Defendant was driving, they admit that at the end of para 2.

Then para 3 is the usual new standard one for 2025, seen in the thread by @shahib_02

Then add a para 3.1. saying that the signage was unclear about what payment was required and the payment machines taped up as they were out of use creating an impression that there was no need to pay, etc, etc.

Then change the start of para 4 (from the Template Defence) to say that it will be common ground that the only potential loss is the £1 (or whatever) fee but any supposed contract around tariffs was frustrated by the Claimant's decision to tape up the payment machine.

Hi. I'm not sure why you thought that statement had been made untrue - both my partner and I attended the children's football tournament that morning. We share a car and share driving duties. Neither of us remember who was driving that particular morning, it could literally have been either of us. It's a location we've both been to several times since (for children's football-related activities, though we now park in the adjacent free car park) and the payment machines have been taped up each time. I'd hate to give the impression that I am lying, I'd happily state if I knew who the driver was (or remain silent to the point altogether) if that were the case.

Coupon-mad

Fair enough! 

But do you see how easy it is for a person to draw an adverse inference if you DON'T say all that in your defence? Cover yourself.

Make it clear that the D was an occupant of the car and that both their partner and the Defendant attended the children's football tournament that morning. We share a car and share driving duties. Neither of us remember who was driving that particular morning, it could literally have been either of us. It's a location we've both been to several times since (for children's football-related activities, though we now park in the adjacent free car park) and the payment machines have been taped up each time.

P.S. I've added some more wording in my last reply. Now edited.

Popcorn_addict

Thanks, I do indeed see how inferences can be drawn and would certainly hate for that to happen due to my own omission. I shall get a defence drafted up tomorrow (I should probably go to bed now) and post it up before submission. 

Thank you for your kind assistace, I truly appreciate it.

Gr1pr

Please dont post your full draft defence,  we only want to check your homework regarding the few paragraphs mentioned above,  2 to 4, not the rest of it,  thank you 

KeithP

Popcorn_addict said:

The issue date on the claim form is 10 Jan 2025.

The acknowledgement was lodged on 24/01/2025.

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 12th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Popcorn_addict

Right, so following the advice given, this is what I've got for my paras 2-4:

The facts known to the Defendant: 

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper. It is also admitted that the Defendant was an occupant of the car and that both they and their partner were attending a child’s football tournament that morning. The Defendant and their partner share a car and share driving duties. It is a location that both parties visited several times since (for further children’s football activities) and the payment machines have been taped up each time. Due in no small part to the amount of time elapsed since the alleged infraction, neither the Defendant nor their partner can recall with any confidence who was driving that particular morning 

 

3.1. As noted above, the car was parked in the University of St Mark and St John Sports Centre car park due to attendance by the Defendant and their partner at a child’s football tournament. Tournament organisers had communicated that parking would be free and, if the Defendant had parked in the adjacent car park owned by the University of St Mark and St John, parking would indeed have been free. This confusion was compounded by poor signage at the car park used and all parking machines in that car park being taped up as they were out of use. This created an impression that there was no need for payment. 

3.2. No PCN was affixed to the car nor was a PCN received by post. Accordingly, the opportunity to appeal expired and the first the Defendant knew about it was upon receipt of a letter from DCBL, a sister company to DCB Limited. This letter was in intimidating language and demanded an extortionate sum of money. It was quite rightly ignored as it referenced a PCN that had never been received and the letter bore all the hallmarks of a scam.   

3.3. The Defendant did not ignore the Letter Before Claim and disputed the demand, asking for a POPLA Code. This was flat out refused, despite the BPA Code of Practice (2024) requiring 'debt' recovery to be paused and the PCN re-issued for appeal, in cases where the motorist has not received a PCN. 

3.4. The Defendant alleges that the Claimant, through their agent DCBL, intentionally made it difficult for the Defendant to represent their interest. The Defendant made reasonable requests to the Claimant, through DCBL, to be supplied with details of the landowner so that they might contact the landowner but that information was refused.  

4. It will be common ground that the only potential loss is a £3 fee that would cover 3 hours of parking, though the available provision of free parking in an adjacent car park would make even that loss seem specious. However, the Claimant will also concede that any supposed contract around tariffs was frustrated by the Claimant's decision to tape up the payment machines. And persuasive case law has confirmed that parking firms ARE required to show loss in a Payment-based car park: in a parking appeal heard on 28 January 2025 at Winchester County Court, Her Honour Judge Brownhill provided crucial guidance on key issues including  

i) the requirement to prove actual loss in parking cases involving a tariff, and  

ii) the importance of clear and unambiguous terms. 

Popcorn_addict

I'll probably re-number the paragraphs but have included them as 3.1, 3.2 , etc here for clarity.