Excel Parking/DCBlegal Defence advice - Paying outside of the 10 minute time upon entry.

newbie_2517

@Gr1pr this is what was on the original letter and then sent over in pdf format by DCB legal. 

Gr1pr

I dont think it matters,  just that using CCTV is rare and more intrusive than ANPR cameras, data protection etc

Concentrate on the core facts regarding entry,  exit, time paid for,  hopefully in full, rubbishing the now banned 5 minutes rule etc

Dont be sidetracked about the type of camera or people monitoring,  they arent relevant here

Defence is based on rebutting the POC,  so show us a redacted picture of the POC after hiding the VRM details first 

newbie_2517

Yes I was also surprised about the use of CCTV.  You are right I guess that point won’t be relevant in the defence. Here is the POC:

Gr1pr

So is that POC date the ISSUE date as is written   ?  Or the incident date  ?  ,  an earlier date than the issue date,  postal PCN notices are issued later than the incident date 

newbie_2517

Well spotted! I didn’t notice that, yes the incident was 30/08/2024 but the PCN came 05/09/2024. Should I make reference to this and if so in what capacity? 

Coupon-mad

Easy one! I wrote a defence re the 5 minute rule the other week.

Search the forum for:

Hannah Robinson defence wonders mine

newbie_2517

Thank-you @Coupon-mad that’s very helpful I will go check that out now 👍🏼

newbie_2517

Hi guys, I am currently in the process of writing my defence. Would really like peoples opinions on adding something to my defence in addition to the template I am using from the newbies thread.  I was wanting to cite the update to the 'private parking sector single code of practice version 1.1', a document published 17th February 2025 by the BPA and IPC, plus also quoting the MSE article I found this in? I could add a hyperlink into the reference to the article. 

Thoughts on this would be most welcome. Going to tag @Coupon-mad here as I have seen your advice has been invaluable on many cases, and also opening the question to everyone else - all opinions welcome.  Once I have drafted I will post my defence on here up to point 4 as has been suggested. My dead line is the 18th March as noted by @KeithP , hoping to get it sent off soon.

Quote below from my original post:

• I am also hopeful after reading a recently published article on the money saving expert website.  It talks about the latest 'private parking sector single code of practice version 1.1', a document published 17th February 2025 by the BPA and IPC. The article on MSE writes "From today (Monday 17 February), drivers using private car parks with camera technology (such as Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) or CCTV camera monitoring) should no longer receive a parking charge notice as long as they pay in full for the duration of their stay before leaving the car park." "Today's changes follow a review of the sector's Private Parking Code of Practice, set up by the UK's two private parking industry trade bodies; The British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC)." "Citing this new code could help to bolster your case if you do have a complaint with a private parking firm". "This new code also only applies to charges issued on or after 17 February or to charges issued before this date that are unresolved. So, if you've received a charge prior to this date, which you've paid, you won't be able to go back and appeal it." MSE Parking shake up takes force. Available at: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2025/02/private-parking-charges-five-minute-rule/ dated 17th February 2025 (Accessed 19th February 2025). 

newbie_2517

sorry @Coupon-mad I was just reading your edited version for the 5 minute rule which I have copied and pasted below, thank you for referencing this. But I just wanted to check how I could apply this to my case as they are using a 10 minute rule in mine.  I would like to add in my scenario this was completely unreasonable as the car park was busy and it took time to find parking and then I had to deal with my 8 week old baby before exiting the car park.

Just adding the edition made here for reference to my case:

3. It appears that the Defendant is being penalised for getting entrapped by the infamously hidden '5 minute rule' which has been in the national news. The parking industry Trade Bodies have both recognised - only after the matter was raised in both Houses of Parliament - that such a term is unfair on paying drivers and this conduct has been swiftly banned. To hold a consumer liable for an unknown '5 minute time limit' hidden term, is arguably a 'misleading omission' (ref: the CPUTRs 2008) which is an offence - unfair commercial practice - by this Claimant.

3.1. As well as being an offence, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 a charge arising under a hidden term that places an unfair burden on the consumer is unrecoverable, so the Claimant cannot be heard to say "well it wasn't unfair last year".  That would be absurd, especially given that this same Claimant is the notorious ex-wheel-clamper responsible for the cases highlighted by BBC News (including well-publicised claims against Rosey Hudson - a £1900 claim - and Hannah Robinson - a £11,000 claim) all of which occurred around the same months and under the same "you paid too late" desperately rogue practice approach as in the extant case. This Claimant has reportedly told irate MPs last month that all such cases have been dropped, due to the adverse publicity.  One wonders why they think they can pursue this one.

Coupon-mad

But 'ANY minute rule' is banned, obviously, as the news articles explain. So just change:

'To hold a consumer liable for an unknown '5 minute time limit' 

to

To hold a consumer liable for an unknown '5 or 10 minute time limit'