Parking fine/ Liverpool/ Myrtle Parade - Original fine not received - now I have a letter from dcbl

blue_sky777

Le_Kirk said:

@blue_sky777 you now have more posts on this thread than the OP: can I suggest you send a message to the forum team to have it split into a new thread for you. It can be confusing trying to answer three posters on same thread!

Sorry about that. I thought I just had the exact same experience in the exact same place with OP so just asking here, will post in a new thread if there is any update from my side, thanks for help!

Roldiex

Hi all, OP here back with an update. 

Thanks for all the input and advice above from everyone. @Blue_sky777 keep in touch and I hope we beat these ********* (too many words to choose) :-) . 

Update on data breach complaint. 

Dcbl responded to the breach of data complaint, but just sent the general dpa request email back to me. They failed to explain why they are still responding to an email address which they have never confirmed belongs to me.  I have therefore sent a final email to them asking again for an explanation of why they breached my data, a copy of their data protection process and information on how they will prevent it happening again.  I will be likely be taking this complaint to ICO and depending on their finding I will consider taking legal action. 
Please note, Npc group did ask for my id before responding back to my email but this was after dcbl breached my data. 

Update on fine/invoice. 

LETTER OF CLAIM received, dated 27 March 2025.  I intend to send the below to them shortly via email. 

LET ME KNOW IF I HAVE MISSED ANYTHING. 

---

Subject: Response to Letter of Claim – [Your Reference Number]

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref: [Insert Reference]
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: [Parking Company Name]

I refer to your letter of claim dated [insert date].

The alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

Grounds for Dispute:

1. Unclear and Inadequate Signage – The signage at the location was not sufficiently clear or prominent to form a legally binding contract. Having used this car park for years without charge, I was not made aware of any change due to the poor signage.

2. Failure to Properly Notify the Change – The car park was previously free to use, and there was no adequate notification or transitional period informing regular users of the change in terms. 

Furthermore, I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and formally request a hold on this matter for an additional 30 days, as per the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 (‘the PAP’).

I also note the claimed amount has been artificially inflated, and I have two questions under the PAP that require specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what you claim as a "Debt Recovery" fee, and if so, is this net or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT.

2. Regarding the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this being claimed as damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

I expect your response within the required time frame. Please note that any court claim will be robustly defended.

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

What's the accusation?

Is this about paying in full but paying late due to a dodgy app?

Or a broken machine/app not working?

Or paying but making a VRM typo?

Roldiex

Failure To Pay For The Duration Of Stay. 

Poor signage. 

Coupon-mad

OK! You'll get a claim form anyway so that reply is just to look reasonable.

Roldiex

Update - I responded to the letter before claim with the request for more time and evidence but I did not receive a response and 5 days later the Claim Form was issued, dated 29 April 2025. 

Thanks for the feedback and support so far.  If anyone has time to check over my defence then that would be great!

For my data breach I have complained to ICO - last recent response from DCBL claimed they had reason to accept my identity via email as I quoted a reference number on the email.

@Coupon-mad thanks for all of your hard work on this site.

Key Deadlines:

• Date of Service (deemed):
  ➤ Saturday 6 May 2025 (5 days after issue - taking bank holidays into consideration)

• Acknowledge Service Deadline:  
  ➤ Friday 20 May 2025

• Defence Deadline:
  ➤ Friday 3 June 2025

DEFENCE

1.The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('POC').

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.

3. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time. However, the Defendant does not admit to being the driver on the date in question and believes they may have been a passenger, as the vehicle is also used by a family member (the Defendant's sister). As such, the Defendant denies entering into any contract with the Claimant.

Unclear Signage and Parking Terms:

4.  As a passenger on the date in question, the Defendant did not observe any clear or prominent signage upon entering, parking, or exiting the site. The signage was not visible or legible from within the vehicle and failed to communicate any material terms or parking charges in a manner compliant with consumer legislation.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of the signage terms as they appeared on the date of the alleged contravention.

5.  The Defendant asserts that even as a witness from within the vehicle, they were not made aware of any specific parking terms, conditions, or charges. This lack of clear and accessible signage prevents the formation of any binding contract, whether with the driver or any other party, and is contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the expectations set by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

6.  The Defendant notes that the location was previously free to use, and any new or changed terms should have been made extremely prominent to alert regular users. No evidence has been provided by the Claimant to show that adequate notice of new charging terms was given.


Petition Against the Car Park:

7.  The Defendant refers to an ongoing public petition against this specific car park due to the widespread issues regarding the unfair imposition of parking charges, inadequate signage, and lack of transparency. This highlights that the Defendant's experience is not isolated and underscores the site’s failure to meet required standards.

No pre-action correspondence:

8. The Defendant never received the original PCN or any valid pre-action correspondence, and only became aware of the matter upon receiving a debt collection letter. As such, the Defendant was not given a fair opportunity to respond or appeal.

Over-Inflated Charges:

9.  The amount claimed is excessive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Claimant’s claim includes an additional £70 in ‘damages’ or ‘costs’ which is a clear abuse of process. This sum is not supported by the Beavis case, nor is it recoverable under the CPR (Civil Procedure Rules). The standard parking charge should be limited to the original PCN amount, and the additional charges are unlawful.

Exaggerated Claim and 'Market Failure':

10.  The Defendant notes that this claim is brought under terms that have been condemned in the Government’s 2022 Parking Code of Practice (currently withdrawn pending review). The Code criticises the industry’s inflated charges, misleading signage, and aggressive tactics.

Failure to Offer Adequate ADR:

11.  The Defendant contends that the Claimant failed to provide a fair or impartial route to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The IAS (Independent Appeals Service), used by the Claimant’s trade body, is not a fair or transparent appeals process. This failure to provide an accessible resolution method is unreasonable.
Lack of Authority:

12.  The Defendant asserts that the Claimant lacks standing to pursue this claim in their own name. The Defendant requires the Claimant to produce strict proof of their contractual rights with the landowner and their authorisation to issue and enforce parking charges at the site.

POFA 2012 and Keeper Liability:

13.  If the Claimant is attempting to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, they are put to strict proof of full compliance with its requirements. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to meet these requirements and therefore cannot recover the charge from the keeper.

Conclusion:

14.  For all of the above reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed. The signage was unclear, no contract was entered into, the charge is excessive and punitive, and the Claimant lacks the authority and evidence to support their claim. The Defendant also reserves the right to seek costs for unreasonable conduct by the Claimant in pursuing a claim without merit.

---

Statement of Truth:

15.  The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:

Coupon-mad

Why haven't you used the 30 paragraph Template Defence?

And you don't factor in bank holidays (or weekends) to calculate the date of service of a court claim form, if that's what you've got? The five days are just that: five days.

If you have got a claim form, do the AOS after day 5 (explained in the second post of the NEWBIES thread with a walkthrough pictorial guide) then use the Template Defence and draft your facts, which slot into paragraph 3.

First, please post a photo of the claim form page, but REDACT 

- your name & address & QR Code

- your VRM

- the Claim number (top right)

- the Password (lower right)

Roldiex

Good question! And I have no idea why I've strayed to a shortened version. I will use the full 30 para template as advised and include the below. And thanks again, deadline is 01 June for defence....this is why your help is appreciated. 

3. Regarding the POC served by DCB Legal, the Defendant notes that the Particulars fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16 in that they disclose no cause of action. The Defendant is unable to discern the conduct alleged to have given rise to the claim. The Defendant was unaware of any contravention at the time and did not receive any original Parking Charge Notice prior to the Letter of Claim, only a letter from a debt collection agency. The location in question was previously free to use and is adjacent to Council parking that remains free after 9PM, which further contributed to the confusion. There was no clear or prominent signage alerting motorists to a change in parking terms. The Defendant believes the signage failed to meet the standards required to form a contract or adequately inform drivers of any obligation to pay.

Roldiex

This is the form. 

Coupon-mad

Roldiex said:

Good question! And I have no idea why I've strayed to a shortened version. I will use the full 30 para template as advised and include the below. And thanks again, deadline is 01 June for defence....this is why your help is appreciated. 

3. Regarding the POC served by DCB Legal, the Defendant notes that the Particulars fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16 in that they disclose no cause of action. The Defendant is unable to discern the conduct alleged to have given rise to the claim. The Defendant was unaware of any contravention at the time and did not receive any original Parking Charge Notice prior to the Letter of Claim, only a letter from a debt collection agency. The location in question was previously free to use and is adjacent to Council parking that remains free after 9PM, which further contributed to the confusion. There was no clear or prominent signage alerting motorists to a change in parking terms. The Defendant believes the signage failed to meet the standards required to form a contract or adequately inform drivers of any obligation to pay.

Looks good.