DCB Legal Representing Excel Parking - Defense Assistance & General Support Needed

alicebarbz

Good evening, 

I have been following the advice of this forum to date. Last week I received a claim form after ignoring all prior correspondence. 

I have acknowledge the service of claim on MCOL and have drafted my defense based on the template provided. 

1). I have seen that this should be sent to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk but I don't understand where this has come from. In my letter it only provides me with an option to write my defense of the paper form they have provided? Can anyone explain why they do not offer the option to submit the defense via email if it is still valid?

2). This is my defense. Is there anything I should add/exclude? Some context:

• At the time I was working for the NHS in the collaboration with probation/the courts and needed to park at this car park whilst seeing patients and the probation office across the road. I left this job because of the constant issues with parking and the stress this has caused. 
• I have telephone log/photo evidence of all of the phonecalls made to helplines and of the times the app has crashed. 
• On two of the three occasions I paid for the ticket but it was outside of the grace period or did not record my reg plate properly (I didn't have time to keep my patients waiting some would have to come back and try the app again later). On the third time I was not able to pay at all and was advised to appeal when the ticket came through (waste of time as it was an ISA appeal). 
• It's a bit funny how the first PCN did not record my reg plate, then the following two, the machine was out of order.. sounds like it might have been on the blink. 

3). I didn't understand point three from the thread "3. {if you have a DCB Legal Claim you can copy the new 'Regarding the POC...' paragraph 3 from the thread by @shahib_02 and only need to add further details as para 3.1. if you have something important to add, such as the fact you appealed and they refused to cancel, or maybe the machines or app were not working, or if you were not driving and believe the NTK was non-POFA you should add that and deny liability}. "

• When I went on this user's thread they seemed to be appealing on the grounds that they were not the driver - only the keeper. I admit that I was the driver so is this relevant to me or not? What should I include in my appeal below:

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 driver.

3. On the dates on which the three Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) were issued, the Defendant was employed as an NHS staff member and parked at Newcastle Avenue Car Park to attend to a patient at the Probation Service building opposite the car park. The circumstances surrounding each PCN are as follows:

(i) PCN dated 21/10/24. The Defendant lawfully entered the car park, purchased a parking ticket, and exited within the allotted timeframe. However, due to an apparent malfunction or defect in the Claimant’s ticket machine, the Defendant’s Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) was only partially recorded. The Defendant had no reasonable way of knowing that the VRM had not been fully registered at the time of purchase. The Claimant has suffered no financial loss, as a valid parking fee was paid.

(ii)  PCN dated 07/11/2024. On this occasion, the Defendant was unable to purchase a parking ticket from the on-site machine as it was out of order. The Defendant made multiple attempts to purchase a ticket via the Connect app, but the app crashed repeatedly. After several failed attempts, the Defendant successfully purchased a ticket covering the full period of parking; however, due to technical failures beyond the Defendant’s control, the purchase was not completed within the grace period. The inability to pay within the stipulated timeframe was solely due to the Claimant’s malfunctioning payment systems, which prevented compliance with the advertised terms and conditions.

(iii) PCN dated 14/11/2024.  The issues encountered on 07/11/2024 reoccurred on this date. The parking machine was again non-functional, and the Connect app was completely inoperative. The Defendant called the Claimant’s dedicated helpline to report the faulty machine and request an alternative means of payment. The helpline advisor confirmed that it was not possible to make payment retrospectively after the grace period had elapsed but assured the Defendant that the call and circumstances would be noted. The Defendant, having made reasonable efforts to comply with the Claimant’s payment requirements, was unfairly penalised despite technical failures outside of their control.

4). How realistic is it that this defense would stand up in court? I'm crippled with stress at the moment due to my social circumstances and could do without the added stress from these a*holes. 

Thank you to everyone who works to keep this forum going. These people are crooks and should be fought at every stage possible. 

Gr1pr

Put the paperwork in a drawer,  after posting the following details below 

Name of the parking company   ?  Excel Parking 

Name of the legal company   ?  DCB Legal 

Issue date on the claim form   ?

Date that you did the AOS online   ?

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

Mcol explains the CNBC options,  paperwork is old school,  so please study the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum,  post 2, plus study the posts 1 & 2 in the defence template thread in announcements too, your post civil changes and answers are there,  regardless of the paperwork 

Shahib_02 is not appealing,  they are defending , you are not appealing,  you are defending 

Your paragraph 2 should end keeper and driver,  if true  

Your 3 is the shahib_02 3, with the date or dates changed as required 

Same as in this thread below too

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6595774/parking-fine-from-nearly-3-years-ago#latest

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

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

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Coupon-mad

They don't advertise the option to email a defence because they want people to use the online MCOL box.

But that box is character-restricted and chews up all the formatting. And our template defence is twice that length.

So we always email it instead.

You know from the first post of the Template Defence thread that this email IS on offer to respond to claim forms. It's right there on their list (the black box I've copied there).

They just don't want everybody emailing them!

Trust us. We do this daily. Have for years.

alicebarbz

Thank you for your responses.

Name of the parking company: Excel Parking
Name of the legal company: DCB Legal 
Issue date on the claim form: 12/03/25
Date that you did the AOS online: 19/03/25
POC: See below

Thank you @Coupon-mad for explaining why we submit via email. I was just curious as to why they don't advertise this option. 

Please see my updated defense below:

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 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 21/10/2024, 07/11/2024 or 14/11/2024 (the dates of the alleged visits).  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 PCNs can accumulate to £510 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

 

(i) On the dates on which the three Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) were issued, the Defendant was employed as an NHS staff member and parked at Newcastle Avenue Car Park to attend to a patient at the Probation Service building opposite the car park. The circumstances surrounding each PCN are as follows:

(ii) PCN dated 21/10/24. The Defendant lawfully entered the car park, purchased a parking ticket, and exited within the allotted timeframe. However, due to an apparent malfunction or defect in the Claimant’s ticket machine, the Defendant’s Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) was only partially recorded. The Defendant had no reasonable way of knowing that the VRM had not been fully registered at the time of purchase. The Claimant has suffered no financial loss, as a valid parking fee was paid.

(iii)  PCN dated 07/11/2024. On this occasion, the Defendant was unable to purchase a parking ticket from the on-site machine as it was out of order. The Defendant made multiple attempts to purchase a ticket via the Connect app, but the app crashed repeatedly. After several failed attempts, the Defendant successfully purchased a ticket covering the full period of parking; however, due to technical failures beyond the Defendant’s control, the purchase was not completed within the grace period. The inability to pay within the stipulated timeframe was solely due to the Claimant’s malfunctioning payment systems, which prevented compliance with the advertised terms and conditions.

(iiii) PCN dated 14/11/2024.  The issues encountered on 07/11/2024 reoccurred on this date. The parking machine was again non-functional, and the Connect app was completely inoperative. The Defendant called the Claimant’s dedicated helpline to report the faulty machine and request an alternative means of payment. The helpline advisor confirmed that it was not possible to make payment retrospectively after the grace period had elapsed but assured the Defendant that the call and circumstances would be noted. The Defendant, having made reasonable efforts to comply with the Claimant’s payment requirements, was unfairly penalised despite technical failures outside of their control.

Coupon-mad

alicebarbz said:

Name of the parking company: Excel Parking
Name of the legal company: DCB Legal 
Issue date on the claim form: 12/03/25

Please see my updated defence below:

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 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 21/10/2024, 07/11/2024 or 14/11/2024 (the dates of the alleged visits).  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 PCNs can accumulate to £510 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

(i) On the dates on which the three Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) were issued, the Defendant was employed as an NHS staff member and parked at Newcastle Avenue Car Park to attend to a patient at the Probation Service building opposite the car park. The circumstances surrounding each PCN are as follows:

(ii) PCN dated 21/10/24. The Defendant lawfully entered the car park, purchased a parking ticket, and exited within the allotted timeframe. However, due to an apparent malfunction or defect in the Claimant’s ticket machine, the Defendant’s Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) was only partially recorded. The Defendant had no reasonable way of knowing that the VRM had not been fully registered at the time of purchase. The Claimant has suffered no financial loss, as a valid parking fee was paid.

(iii)  PCN dated 07/11/2024. On this occasion, the Defendant was unable to purchase a parking ticket from the on-site machine as it was out of order. The Defendant made multiple attempts to purchase a ticket via the Connect app, but the app crashed repeatedly. After several failed attempts, the Defendant successfully purchased a ticket covering the full period of parking; however, due to technical failures beyond the Defendant’s control, the purchase was not completed within the grace period. The inability to pay within the stipulated timeframe was solely due to the Claimant’s malfunctioning payment systems, which prevented compliance with the advertised terms and conditions.

(iiii) PCN dated 14/11/2024.  The issues encountered on 07/11/2024 reoccurred on this date. The parking machine was again non-functional, and the Connect app was completely inoperative. The Defendant called the Claimant’s dedicated helpline to report the faulty machine and request an alternative means of payment. The helpline advisor confirmed that it was not possible to make payment retrospectively after the grace period had elapsed but assured the Defendant that the call and circumstances would be noted. The Defendant, having made reasonable efforts to comply with the Claimant’s payment requirements, was unfairly penalised despite technical failures outside of their control.

x

Wow what a scam. Three episodes of the payment system and keypad failing you.

We know about Connect Cashless. It doesn't work properly.

The '5 minute rule' scam by private parking operators is also now banned but I see one of these is for 'paying too late'.

Le_Kirk

After several failed attempts, the Defendant successfully purchased a ticket covering the full period of parking; however, due to technical failures beyond the Defendant’s control, the purchase was not completed within the grace consideration period. 

Grace period comes at the end of the parking event.

KeithP

alicebarbz said:

Issue date on the claim form: 12/03/25

Date that you did the AOS online: 19/03/25

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th April 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 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'.

alicebarbz

Thanks all, I've made those amendments and will follow the 12 steps now

alicebarbz

I sent my defence to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk and got an automated email saying "Please expect a response to your enquiry in 10 days". It's been 10 days and no response. Do I need to take any action?

Le_Kirk

CNBC are somewhat more than 10 days behind in their admin.  Check your status on MCOL and you might see your defence as having been received.