CNBC/ Parking Control Limited

Noelle101

I know this is my fault for ignoring them but trying to contact the original company is a nightmare. I received a claim from from CNBC asking for payment for parking on a site without a valid ticket. I had actually booked the parking through Just Park.

On the claim form they list the car park as "Wythenshawe Town Football Club Car Park 1". When I looked at my original booking I can see that it is listed as "Wythenshawe Town Football Club Car Park 2" however the image that is displayed on the booking confirmation of the car park matches the car park that I used. 

When I arrived at the site the only signs were for the Wythenshawe Town Football Club to my right and I parked in the area which matches with the photo displayed on my booking. The car park to the left didn't have a sign indicating that is was Car Park 1 or 2. I think there was a car washing service in the area. 

Obviously, I should have dealt with this sooner but just looking for some advice. Should I defend this or simply pay as it appears they are claiming I was in the wrong car park.

Also, I did I same on the following day and had no claim letter for next day despite booking in the same car park and parking in the same place.

Le_Kirk

Which PPC is involved and which solicitor (if the PPC are using one)?  Is it a private car park or is there any possibility that it is council owned?
What is the date of issue of the N1SDT claim form?  Have you read the NEWBIE sticky and in particular the part about completing the AoS?

KeithP

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

Coupon-mad

Of course you don't ever pay this.  Easy to defend this case.

Ambiguous car park signs must be interpreted in the way that favours the consumer (as per the CRA 2015 law regarding 'ambiguous terms').  You had an ambiguous booking and unclear signs on arrival.  That'll slot nicely within the Template Defence.

As Keith says, please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim from your Claim Form - with all your personal detail hidden of course.

Noelle101

I've followed the instructions regarding the part about completing the AoS? Did that yesterday. I have copies of my booking too. This is the claim form they have sent me. 

[Image removed by Forum Team]

Noelle101

This is the Claim Form

Gr1pr

So UKPC via DCB Legal,  issue date 4th February 2025,  AOS done online recently,  so defence deadline in early March

I bet that the issue date in the POC is incorrect,  more likely to be the incident date 

Presumably UKPC did receive a payment,  regardless of which car park was used,  unless there were 2 different car park companies involved   ?

Definitely do not pay the figure on the claim form,  no matter what 

KeithP

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

That's almost three weeks 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'.

Coupon-mad

Noelle101 said:

This is the Claim Form

In most current defences v DCB Legal claims, paragraph 3 (within the 30 paragraph Template Defence) looks similar to the thread below by @shahib_02  ... just change the incident date:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

No need for more detail EXCEPT if you need to add something important as 3.1 (after shahib's para).

Then the whole template defence WHICH WE BEG POSTERS NOT TO POST IN FULL HERE (you've no idea how tiresome it is to be constantly asked to check our own work!).

DCB Legal will discontinue in 6 months time, before the hearing.

Noelle101

Am I okay to post my defence here? This is basically what happened. Although their case is pretty dicey considering they don't specify the time and the date the PCN was issued can't be correct as its the day I parked there. 
_____________________________________________________

1. The defendant denies that 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 the terms. 

The facts as known to the defendant.

2. The facts in this defence from the Defendant’s won knowledge and honest belief. The vehicle is recognized and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle with the registration mark SF16 JRW.

3. The claimant states that the vehicle SF16 JRW was parked at Wythenshawe Town Football Club Car Park 1, Timpson Road, Rouththorn Industrial Estate, M23 9LL on 25/08/2024 in Excess of the Time Paid for Time/ Parked Withthout Making A Valid Payment. 

The defendant denies this claim as the defendant paid for parking on Just Park website for the period 11:00 25/08/2024 to 02:00 26/08/2024 for Wythenshawe Town Football Club Car Park – Prebook Car Park 2. The booking reference from JustPark includes a photograph of the entrance to the parking area. The defendant belief was that this image should be used as a guide to the area on which they had paid to park.

The defendant duly parked in this area show on the image indicated on the Just Park booking confirmation at approx. 13:00 on 25/08/2024. Upon arriving at the address provided there was no clear signage indicating which area was Car Park 1 or Car Park 2. 

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

_________________________________________________________

Coupon-mad

But that's not the one I linked & advised you to copy.