Parking/Liverpool Myrtle Parade - Original letter not received and got letter from dcbl/Grace period

blue_sky777

Hi all, I know there are some threads asking about Myrtle Parade but I will no doubt be needing some advice again for my situation (feel like I should not get the letter at first place). I have read all the newbies thread and all others related to dcbl.

Put long story in short:
 - 27/02/2025: Received a letter from dcbl asking to pay £170 for unpaid parking charge, intructed by NPC.
- 28/02/2025: Sent an email to NPC asking about the original letter and evidence. 
 On the same day NPC sent back the certificate of postage for original Parking charge and 2 ANPR photos, parked 13min49s in total - grace time was 10mins mentioned in letter.

I didn't bother to email back to NPC and took the advice from the newbie thread that don't contact dcbl. They all seems too doodgy to me, I haven't moved home for 5 years, not letter lost in the past.

I couldn't find the email address of landowener to complain. This place was free for ages and I usually come here for KFC/ food pick up. It was bit buys in KFC on that day that's why took 13mins. 

I recently visted this place again and found that the grace period is actually 15mins, so I shouldn't receive the original letter in the first place or they could have changed the rule very recent. 

Myrtle Parade is a horrible place for parking as many people have mentioned in their thread.

I really need some advice of what should I do next in my scenario? Should I email back NPC about  the parking didn't exceed grace period? Or should I just keep waiting the Letter of Claim?




Many thanks.

Coupon-mad

That's a good evidence photo to show you shouldn't have been ticketed (it's for them to prove that rule wasn't in place at the time, not for you to prove).

But wait until claim form time.

Thorndorise

Coupon-mad said:

That's a good evidence photo to show you shouldn't have been ticketed (it's for them to prove that rule wasn't in place at the time, not for you to prove).

But wait until claim form time.

You know my feelings on this company - so I won't dwell on that, but - playing devil's advocate here - is it good evidence?

What the sign states is that you must purchase a valid P&D ticket for your stay - and the sign below states that this must be done within 15 mins of your entry to the car park. It sounds like they're using ANPR in and out  - so the entry time was x and the exit time y. Whilst I admit it may create confusion (quelle surprise!) It could still have a 10 min consideration period that was exceeded with no ticket purchased within the 15 min window granted. Therefore when they exited the car park and it was over that 10 min cons time, and they didn't buy a ticket, they have effectively been given a ticket correctly - have they not? (happy to be shot down on this)

Now, I know that these guys are numpties at NPC, and having read the other posts, I'm pretty sure they don't have an additional new parking T&C s sign up, not clear signage throughout. Esp as this was free before.

I think the only evidence this provides is they are deliberately confusing people by having the standard 10min consideration time and a sign that might be misread that indicates 15mins, I'm not sure it means they shouldn't have gotten a ticket.

What they certainly should have got is the original PCN NtK, and expect a decent standard of entry signage which was clearly lacking ( as I said before not surprise)...

None of the above really matters now as it is the notorious DCBL, as C-M says, await the claim and it will likely be dropped if robustly challenged!

Car1980

It's contradictory evidence, so it comes down to a consumer fairness test.

The most prominent on the entire signpost is the 15 minute message below.

If you are not parking for more than 15 minutes why would you need to pay for parking?

It's the usual lack of hierarchy of information. It's often because the clearer the signage, the fewer the number of tickets are issued and the lower the profits. And they love a lot of small print. Plus they're not graphic designers and their signs are usually visual noise and amateurish crap.

What the PPC should have said is:

YOU MUST PAY FOR PARKING AS SOON AS YOU HAVE PARKED

Any payments received after the period of 15 minutes will be regarded as a failure to comply with the terms and conditions and you agree to pay £100 blah blah etc.

Coupon-mad

Ambiguous term, innit? CRA 2015 applies.

Thorndorise

Coupon-mad said:

Ambiguous term, innit? CRA 2015 applies.

I agree entirely, it doesn't help keep things clear and simple as they should (and are knowingly not doing)....

making parking 'forgettable' my a**e Will!

blue_sky777

Coupon-mad said:

That's a good evidence photo to show you shouldn't have been ticketed (it's for them to prove that rule wasn't in place at the time, not for you to prove).

But wait until claim form time.

Hi @Coupon-mad, thank you very much for comment, I now received the letter of claim from deb legal. I would like to hear your advice, should I use the temple from newbie thread or should I just register the reply form saying I shouldn't be ticked for this case (parking less than grace time). Much appreciate for your help!

Coupon-mad

Use the template. Makes no difference. 

blue_sky777

Hi @Coupon-mad, I am working on the defense at moment. Thanks for your template and I managed to write paragraph 3, could you take a look please? As discussed in this thread, I shouldn't be ticketed (parking less than grace period) and also I didn't receive the original PCN (quite a few people here facing the same issue). Any feedback and suggestion is very much appreciated!

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not 

comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts 

necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of 

action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery 

of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not 

monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim 

also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') 

maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason 

for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the 

right to amend the defence if details of the contract are 

provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its 

powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is 

denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest 

should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with 

the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material 

documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The 

Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of 

unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant 

has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to 

admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

3. The Claimant, National Parking Control, asserts that the 

applicable grace period is ten (10) minutes. However, clear and 

unambiguous signage displayed at the site indicates a grace period 

of fifteen (15) minutes. The Defendant’s recorded stay was 

thirteen (13) minutes and forty-nine (49) seconds, which is within 

the fifteen (15) minute grace period expressly stated on the 

signage. Therefore, the Defendant submits that there was full 

compliance with the parking terms and conditions as displayed at 

the location. For the Court’s consideration, the Defendant refers 

to Claimant’s response, which includes the following statement:

"The grace period was 10 minutes for motorists to enter the site, 

read the signs, make payment for their stay, or exit the car park. 

If motorists overstay this 10 minute period, without making 

payment for their stay, they can be liable for a charge." It is 

relevant to note that the car park in question serves multiple 

commercial establishments, including Tesco, KFC, and various 

takeaway outlets. It is a matter of common practice that patrons 

will use these facilities for short visits, often for the purposes 

of dropping off or collecting passengers. The signage's stated 

grace period is therefore material, and the Defendant acted in 

reliance upon the terms as displayed at the site. Accordingly, the 

Defendant respectfully submits that, by remaining within the grace 

period as set out on the posted signage, no breach of the parking 

terms and conditions occurred.
The Defendant did not receive the original Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) from the Claimant. The first 

correspondence received by the Defendant was a debt collection 

letter from DCBL. As a result, the Defendant was deprived of the 

opportunity to appeal the PCN in a timely manner and to engage 

with the Claimant’s formal appeals process. The Claimant, National 

Parking Control, escalated the charge to debt recovery without 

verifying that the initial notice had been properly served upon 

the Defendant. This failure to ensure receipt of the PCN has 

prejudiced the Defendant’s right to appeal and constitutes a 

denial of due process. It is also submitted that this issue is not 

unique to the Defendant. There are multiple reports of other 

individuals not receiving original PCNs from National Parking 

Control, suggesting a recurring issue in the Claimant’s 

notification procedures. In light of the above, the Defendant 

respectfully submits that the claim is procedurally flawed and 

that enforcement should not proceed where proper notification and 

the right to appeal have not been ensured.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but 

to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and 

valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights 

Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and 

sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. 

Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the 

duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that 

this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On 

the limited information given, this case looks no different. The 

Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written 

landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict 

proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of 

the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, 

schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not 

an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a 

strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for 

loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any 

relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This 

PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or 

trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully 

distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis 

(an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and 

generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the 

binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 

4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only 

parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in 

paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin 

costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 

were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated 

letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by 

operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government 

recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring 

in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting 

money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit 

being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking 

operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms 

having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that 

there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 

('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: 

see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim 

against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid 

parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the 

driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not 

specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They 

are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) 

event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is 

no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an 

indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a 

third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that 

has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases 

is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs 

(r.38.6(1)). 

Many thanks!

Coupon-mad

Does that all fit into MCOL?

Remove 'clear and unambiguous'

blue_sky777

Coupon-mad said:

Does that all fit into MCOL?

Remove 'clear and unambiguous'

Yes, this is what I copied from MCOL, used 121/122 line so pretty full.

Thanks for the comments! is there anything I should be editing?