Northwest Parking Management / DCB Legal

Hufty200

Hi All,

Firstly, a big thank you to you all who volunteer your time/expertise on here - it's very much appreciated and I have learnt a whole lot in the last 7-days of reading up. I've found the scare tactics and intimidation a disgrace and willing to stand up to these awful charges for what was, I'm led to believe, 15 minute overstay in a car park.

The case;

The driver was issued with a PCN in the post for an alleged contravention on 05/07/2024. I appealed this decision using the template found on these forums. Since then, the driver ignored all correspondence / debt collection intimidation letters. 
A MCOL letter has now been received, issued on the 28th March 2025.

I have completed the acknowledgement of service which I believe gives me up to the 11th May to submit defence.

The defence is based on the driver being unaware of any clear signage within the area and not entering a contract to park there.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXXX

Between

NORTHWEST PARKING MANAGEMENT LTD

- and -  

XXXXXXXXXXX

_________________

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 05/07/2024" (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.

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.


Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government 

ALL FURTHER POINTS AS IN THE TEMPLATE

This hasn't been customised, rather just followed the template as given by Coupon-Mad and Shahib_02. Is this acceptable to send to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk or am I missing some further personal defence?

Gr1pr

The keeper received the pcn in the post after the incident happened   ( not the driver   )

Your deadline is incorrect,  issue date is 28th march,  so 33 days after that date is 30th April , 4pm,  assuming that the AOS was done online on MCOL,  ideally between day 5 and day 19  ?

I would strongly suggest that you study the 2 successful cases in this single thread below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6547966/private-ticket-from-north-west-parking-ltd-pursued-by-dcbl-won-court-case/p1

Coupon-mad

Remove this as DCB Legal have just adapted their POC to remove this loophole:

"No PCN was "issued on 05/07/2024" (the date of the alleged visit)."

Why are you admitting to driving in a case where there may not be any possibility of POFA 'keeper liability'? Where the location is a Marina, it's quite possible that there are byelaws including a clause about vehicles.

You should only admit to driving in a byelaws location case if an early appeal/dispute already did?

If you did appeal you should add a para 3.1 talking about the dispute and why the PCN arose.  At the moment you haven't responded at all to the allegation that no payment was made.

Hufty200

Thanks all. Please see updated defence below. Changed driver to keeper, is this acceptable or am I missing something?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXXX

Between

NORTHWEST PARKING MANAGEMENT LTD

- and -  

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

_________________

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.

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. 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 On the afternoon of the 05/07/2024, the defendant visited the Hartlepool marina during working hours. The car park appeared to be a public road with no visible signs to state it was private land.

3.2 The defendant parked the car to make a work phone call and purchase a sandwich from the local café. At no point was the car left for more than 5 minutes and after 20 minutes, the defendant left the car park after finishing the phone call.

3.3 The defendant looked for any signs of a ticket machine or signage but did not see anything obvious or visible from the main area of the car park.

3.4 The defendant then received a letter from the claimant demanding £170 for breach of contract. This was disputed by the defendant.

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.


Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government.

AND ALL FURTHER POINTS.

Coupon-mad

So you are admitting to driving and parking, and not taking the chance to dispute it as not relevant land?

Hufty200

Coupon-mad said:

So you are admitting to driving and parking, and not taking the chance to dispute it as not relevant land?

Can you advise how one would do that? Are there any threads you can recommend I can look at with similar? 

The one above had already acknowledged being the driver.

Thank you Coupon Mad.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum.  Just a few keywords, never a sentence.  Something like:

defence byelaws keeper liability true

or 

defence harbour byelaws parking

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Search the forum.  Just a few keywords, never a sentence.  Something like:

defence byelaws keeper liability true
or 
defence harbour byelaws parking

There even threads specifically concerning Hartlepool Marina.

Hufty200

Updated defence (1-4)  --

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 as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but denies having been the driver, and liability is denied.

3. The location of the alleged parking charge is Hartlepool Marina, a site covered by The Tees and Hartlepool Harbour Byelaws 1977 & 1985 ('the byelaws'). The plan attached to the end of the byelaws shows that the Hartlepool Marina development and thus the site of the car park in the Particulars of Claim ('POC') sits within the boundary to which the byelaws apply. There is no evidence that the byelaws or the boundary at this location have changed since the 1985 revision and there is no evidence they have been repealed. In any case the onus is on the private parking company or the landowner to show that the byelaws no longer apply. Among other things the byelaws cover, in Part VII - Vehicles, vehicular activity within the boundary and failing to pay for parking is not a byelaws offence. The byelaws are given statutory force by The Tees and Hartlepools [sic] Port Authority Act 1966. As a result, the location is not “relevant land” as defined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'), which states: 

3 (1) In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than— 

(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);

(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;

(c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

The keeper of the vehicle is therefore not liable. 

4. The driver does not recollect what signs were visible but subsequent research into the site shows that the car park tariff was "Under 15 mins – Free, No ticket required". The Defendant has seen no evidence that the free parking time was in fact breached, nor where the car was parked in relation to any sign, nor that any payment methods were working. No Parking Charge Notice ('PCN') was affixed to the vehicle at the time.

I'd appreciate any advice.

Coupon-mad

Looks much more on point!  Then add the rest of the Template Defence, paragraphs re-numbered to suit.

Hufty200

Thank you very much, Coupon-mad.

I'm going to export as a pdf and send to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk later today.

I will keep you all updated.