Private road parking advice - NPC / DCB legal

thankyouinadvance

After ignoring letters from NPC and DCB legal, I have received a court letter relating to a parking charge for parking on a road outside a lidl shop. There are no parking meters or ways to pay for parking, it seems to be just a honey trap. I have not admitted liability or provided driver details. They did send a driver details request in time and with the correct wording.

I wonder if someone might be able to read my response and give advice before I post the form back to the court? Many thanks in advance!

The location of the alleged offence is a short stretch of road through which shoppers for the popular low cost supermarket LIDL must drive in order to access the supermarket car park.

The supermarket car park has many typical car parking restriction signs in blue and white headed PRIVATE LAND. Shoppers will be familiar with these signs as they are now displayed in most UK supermarkets.

At the entrance to Twin Oaks drive there is a huge LIDL sign displaying opening times etc. Adjacent to this, 10cm from the grass verge of the Lidl car park, is another sign with a small NPC logo and a large P in a blue box. This is the universally accepted highway code sign signifying a place suitable to park or where parking is permitted. In a small font above the large P are the words PRIVATE LAND. In a very small font below are the words See Signs in car park for details. This sign is positioned in such a way that drivers might reasonably assume that once they have travelled past the sign they will have entered an area upon which parking is permitted, but time restrictions will apply, as they do in most supermarket car parks.

Approximately 50m from the entrance to Twin Oaks Drive is a right turn which leads to the main Lidl car park. Adjacent to this entrance, on the east side of the road, are several car parking spaces with a dropped kerb allowing shoppers to access a path that leads to the trolley pickup area. My 85 year old mother uses these spaces as they are in close proximity to the trolleys and store entrance. Since the death of my father we no longer have a blue badge so cannot yet use the disabled parking bays in the main car park, though we are applying for one.

10m from these parking spaces is a signpost which has a sign that faces West which cannot be seen or read from the perspective of drivers parking here. The sign is positioned so that the top is approximately 3m from road level and subsequently cannot be seen through a windscreen when driving or sitting in a car.

In order to read this sign, one must stand in the road facing East. The sign is written in a very small font which necessitates being close to it, but when close enough to read it, the angle is so acute that my 85 year old mother is unable to tilt her head back far enough. At 53, I found it difficult enough.

Upon reading the photograph of the sign I took recently, it is clear that this sign is meant to mislead. In large letters it warns that you “must park wholly within a marked bay”, and “no parking on yellow lines”. It also says “No parking on roadways at any time”. My mother interprets this as no parking in the road, not no parking at the side of the road. If this actually means no parking on the side of the road, then that means there are no permitted places to park at all on Twin Oaks drive at all, which leads me to assume that the large ‘P’ parking sign that NPC sited at the entrance to the road is intended to mislead.

I have spoken to local residents who told me that NPC employs a man who sits in a vehicle a little way up the road waiting for shoppers to leave their cars at this spot. When a victim is out of sight, he runs up and takes a photograph. I was curious and so drove up the road. I witnessed the man sat is his car watching and waiting. When I took a photo of his car to cross reference with the neighbours, he was abusive and made a very rude hand gesture which was witnessed by my 11 year old daughter and 85 year old mother.

This road is clearly a trap. NPC operates what is tantamount to a scam, preying on unsuspecting shoppers who are bamboozled by the conflicting parking signs, or unable to read the small font. By adopting the same blue and white colour scheme of the legitimate Lidl car park signs they invite shoppers to conflate the two. Th elidl car park signs reassure shoppers that they may park legitimately for 90 minutes. There is no warning that the spaces at the entrance are not within this scheme.

NPC run what is in effect a predatory scam at this location. They have a man lying in wait to catch drivers, and a machine that spits out threatening letters, each one potentially generating a return of £100 from intimidated shoppers. This is an order of magnitude more profitable than running a legitimate parking business. The signage appears to be deliberately misleading, sharing terms with the real signage of the Lidl car park. Shoppers are told they cannot park on yellow lines and must park within marked bays. But there are no marked bays so it is impossible to not incur a charge. 

If the aim of this was to prevent all parking npc could paint yellow lines, but of course the aim is not to prevent parking, it is to give the illusion of it being safe to park despite there being no way to safely park. There are no machines to pay a parking fee. The only system in place is set up as a honey trap to ensnare unsuspecting drivers who are just popping into Lidl. 

The popular website money savings expert has an entire forum dedicated to this much maligned practice. NPC have a long track record of scamming the public like this, and courts across the UK are taking a dim view.

I intend to pursue NPC for legal costs, damages, emotional distress for my mother and the cost of hiring a drone to obtain clear aerial photographs of the site.

KeithP

thankyouinadvance said:

I have received a court letter...

Hello and welcome.

Do not post anything 'back to the court'..

Can we assume that that means you have received a Claim Form from the CNBC?
If so, what is the Issue Date on it?

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

thankyouinadvance

Hi Keith, thank you for replying. I have not sent anything to anyone yet. I was sent a letter from HM courts and tribunal service saying "We are contacting you because someone claims you own them money". There was also a CLAIM FORM  from CNBC enclosed (N1SDT). The issue date is 25 Feb and it says I have 14 days from the date of service, which is 5 days from the date of issue . I have not filed an acknowledgement of service.

KeithP

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

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th February, you have until Monday 17th March 2025 to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS'), but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AOS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AOS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 31th March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the AOS guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an AOS, nor that 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'.

Ralph-y

have you had a read though the newbies thread ?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou/p1

skim read through till you get to the court section

fisherjim

I assume you mean here a picture paints a thousand words, if so yes that's a trap if ever there was one, note the second GSV is 3 years old though.

thankyouinadvance

Thank you all so much for helping! I have now read the newbies thread, it's tricky to navigate the parts that are pertinent but I think I understand most of it.

I have completed the AOS. Here is the original letter.

Gr1pr

Please post a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left of the claim form after hiding the VRM details first 

thankyouinadvance

Apologies I wasn't sure which part was needed. It's so great you are here to help people like me, I don't know how I would get through it otherwise.

Coupon-mad

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 have something important to add about the site, signs, circumstances, or the allegation.

In your case, the alleged term is prohibitive and doesn't even offer a contract!  So, add a 3.1. after the linked example para 3, that you can copy from a result when you search:

Defence consideration Iyer Lengyel.

Then the rest of the Template Defence (all).

thankyouinadvance

Thank you so much coupon-mad. You guys are proper Robin Hoods! I searched and found this which I have adapted, do you think this will be ok? THANK YOU!

Defence draft: (With personal details redacted)

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

NATIONAL PARKING CONTROL

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXX                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

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 ('the 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. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, but NOT the driver at the time.

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 17/08/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

3.1 The POC pleads that the purported contract breach is for ‘Reason :No Parking or waiting at any time’.  It is known to the defendant that that road is used lawfully by authorised tenants. Nevertheless, nothing of value is offered to non-authorised drivers by the phrase relied upon in the POC. Therefore in the absence of consideration from the trader, no contractual 'meeting of minds' was possible and the only possible claim would be by the landowner, under the tort of trespass (not pleaded).  As found by DJ Iyer at Manchester Court, in PACE v Lengyel.

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.