Claim Form DCB Legal - HELP!!!

emily_k12

Hi all,

I received a PCN for allegedly parking without a valid e-permit. The system required entering your registration upon entering the pub, which I did. I have proof of purchasing a drink at the pub that day and confirmation from the owners that I followed the correct procedure.

After contacting the pub about the PCN, they informed me that their system has been removed and provided a letter confirming my car was authorized to park there. The letter states that as a customer, I should not be liable for the fine since my parking was authorized by my purchases within the pub premises, which can be validated by my transaction history and/or receipt.

It appears the first PCN was sent to the wrong address, resulting in the second fine being sent to the correct address but increasing to £170. Since then, I have received additional PCNs, and they have not allowed me to appeal due to being outside their timeframe.

I have reviewed all the advice and have submitted my Acknowledgement of Service (submitted and received on 11/03/2025).

Could you assist me with drafting my defence, including the correct wording for the draft order and relevant transcripts to attach? I understand I have until 05/04/2025 to submit my defence.

Attached is the claim form sent from CNBC (with my details redacted).

I would greatly appreciate your help. I have reviewed several defences but want to ensure I have the right one.
I've attached a copy of my redacted claim form. Thankyou for your help in advance. 

Gr1pr

There was no fine,  just an invoice from the private parking company for the alleged breach of the parking contract on that private property,  so the allegation listed in the POC 

@Shahib_02 defence posted receon here,  as well as the defence template thread 

No Exhibits etc are attached to the defence email,  just your final defence pdf

I assume that the pcn going to an old address is because you hadn't updated the V5c log book details with the dvla   ?  So your problem not theirs  ?  If so, check that it's correct now

emily_k12

Hi, thanks for your quick response! 
I can see that defense was included that they were not the driver- can i still use this? 

So just so i'm correct, I don't need to attach any exhibits? Just the defence part and final draft? 

The old address was my error and yes this was since corrected online! Do i have much chance? 
Greatly appreciated, thankyou again. 

Gr1pr

If you were the driver,  say so, if you were not the driver,  say so, dont ask us, use whichever is the truth in a court claim 

There is no S in the word Defence,  ensure that you spell everything correctly 

Your final defence is around 30 paragraphs,  one document,  saved and attached as a pdf document 

Exhibits are in your Witness Statement bundle which you submit in several months time to your local civil court and to the lawyers,  not to the CNBC in Northampton 

Everyone has a chance if they do things correctly and in good time 

These cases are often discontinued a few weeks before the hearing date 

Coupon-mad

emily_k12 said:

Hi, thanks for your quick response! 
I can see that defense was included that they were not the driver- can i still use this? 

Obviously you aren't being advised to copy that particular bit! The Template Defence thread clearly tells you to use it for your paragraph 3.

Did you miss that the NEWBIES thread tells you that 99% of cases see the Defendant win or the case discontinued? Nobody needs to ask if they "have a chance" when 99% of newbies succeed!

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 7th April 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over two 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'.

emily_k12

Hi all, 
I want to thankyou all again for your help- this is all quite overwhelming so it's really appreciated!! 

I have started my defence by using the link in the newbies thread and amending to suit my circumstances. Noted, there will probably be mistakes so i am all ears! Is there anything i am missing? Needs amending? 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXXXX

Between

National Parking Control Group Limited

(Claimant)

- and -

xxxxxxxxx

(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 and driver.

 

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 25/08/2024" (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 defendant asserts that they correctly entered their vehicle registration number into the ePermit system located within the premises. The pub later confirmed that the system had since been removed. However, the pub sent a letter to the Claimant, confirming that the parking was authorized and could be validated. The defendant believes the information was either wiped when the system was taken out, or the system was not working at the time.

 

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.

Then "Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government" onward has all been used from Coupon-Mads "Template Defense thread". All of it, including the links.

Many thanks again for your continued support- please bear with me if there are lots of mistakes! 

emily_k12

Hi all! Can anyone help on this? 

Le_Kirk

Seems you have covered all the bases, provided your dates are correct in paragraph #3.  It would be good if you can get hold of a signed statement from the pub about the registration system being removed and keep it for the witness statement stage.  Just add the rest of the paragraphs making 30 in total when sending it to CNBC; don't show us the rest of the template, you have done the  right thing just to refer to it.

Coupon-mad

Tis a thing of beauty. Rather like the costs order against Excel this week, in the other thread.

emily_k12

You're all amazing, thankyou so much!!