National Parking Control Group Ltd/DCB Legal PCN – Lidl Paddock Retail Park - Defence Assistance req

stoneyfaced

Hello everyone!

Thank you for the wealth of knowledge provide on MSE. I have read through many threads and have a good grasp of what the process will entail. I plan to update this thread at each stage and would be grateful for any assistance.

Background:

-        Two family members went to Lidl at Paddock Retail Park, Weybridge

-        The carpark was very busy (also with trollies everywhere) so one person stayed in the car while the other person quickly went into the store

-        The person remained in the car at all times and waited out of the way at the end of a row of spaces (no markings were on the ground or signs around this area highlighting not to stop there)

-        There are signs in the carpark – I will attach a photo if I can – but they are not exactly prominent

-        45 days later a letter from DCBL was received – ‘notice of debt recovery – unpaid parking charge £170’

-        The car is registered to an address that is not currently lived in (as it is being refurbished) but it does have a post-box

-        The letter from DCBL was delivered to the parents’ address (which is where the owner of the car is currently residing)

-        No parking charge notices were received at either address

-        The chance to appeal had elapsed and the PCN details (photos etc) were no longer visible online

Details from the Notice of Debt recovery letter:

-        Client: National Parking Control Group Ltd

-        Location: Lidl Paddock Retail Park, Weybridge

-        Reason for contravention: Not parking wholly within a marked bay

I followed the advice on this forum and attempted to contact the landowner (Lidl were very unhelpful!). I finally managed to track them down but they didn’t even reply unfortunately.

Current status:

-        I have followed the advice on this forum and ignored the letters from DCBL

-        A ‘Letter of Claim’ has now been received from DCB Legal Ltd giving 30 days to respond/pay

Plan:

-        I am not sure if it is ‘POFA’ or 'non-POFA' as we do not have the actual PCN

-        Consequently, I plan to send the ‘more generic’ letter on the newbies thread to info@dcblegal.co.uk

-        I plan to briefly state the following reasons for disputing the claim above the two questions in the above letter:

o   The registered keeper was not the driver and I do not believe their client can hold the keeper liable

o   The car was stopped to drop-off and pick-up a passenger who very briefly shopped at Lidl. This was due to the very busy carpark with trollies obstructing many bays

o   Unclear non-prominent signs and lines – there were no clear terms and/or double red lines or similar 'in your face' warnings where the car was stopped

o   Stopping to drop-off or pick up a passenger is NOT a period of parking

o   The driver was in the car and waiting at all times

Does this sound OK? Is there anything to add at this early stage?

Thank you for any feedback and I will update you at all stages (including cancellation of the PCN – fingers crossed!).

S

Gr1pr

Normally you just email the LoC response template to DCB Legal,  no changes

stoneyfaced

Thanks Gr1pr – I sent the generic LoC response template (without changes) to DCB Legal as advised. I received an automated reply but nothing else.

I have now received the county court claim form and have written up a defence as below.

- Claim Form (Civil National Business Centre) issue date 04 June 2025

- DCB Legal Ltd representing National Parking Control Group Limited

- AoS submitted via MCOL 08/06/25

- Nothing else done on MCOL, treating as read-only.

My defence revolves around the fact that the car was never parked. The carpark was very busy (also with trollies everywhere) so the driver remained in the car at all times while the passenger quickly went into the store and bought two items. The driver waited out of the way at the end of a row of spaces (no markings were on the ground or signs around this area highlighting not to stop there).

I am currently using the wonderful template from the thread by coupon-mad. Please can you advise if I am ready to submit or if there is anything I should add/remove/rework?

Thank you!

PoC:

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at Lidl, Paddock Retail Park, Weybridge, KT13 0XR.

2. The date of the contravention is 13/10/2024 and the D was issued with PC(s) by the Claimant

3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Not Parking Wholly Within A Marked Bay

4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PC(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.03 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees.

Defence draft: (With personal details redacted)

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

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. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 13/10/2024, as alleged.  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.

3.1 On the date in question, the car was never parked as claimed in the POC. The driver of the vehicle remained in the waiting car at all times while the passenger exited the vehicle to shop in the Lidl Store. The passenger quickly returned to the waiting vehicle having purchased just two different products from the Lidl store with evidence of the transaction available to submit when required. Despite only being gone a matter of minutes, the driver waited out of the way at the end of a row of spaces (no markings were on the ground or signs around this area highlighting not to wait there). Referring to the POC: paragraph 3 references ‘breach of the terms on the signs (the contract)’ which is denied since these terms only refer to parking and not waiting to pick someone up as in this case.

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 Defence thread". All of it, including the links.

Coupon-mad

All looks good.

stoneyfaced

Coupon-mad said:

All looks good.

Thanks - I have submitted via email to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk (not cc'd the claimant) and received an auto reply.

I will now wait for the Directions Questionnaire from the CNBC! 

stoneyfaced

AoS submitted on 08/06/2025

AoS received on 09/06/2025

Defence received on 18/06/2025

I have now received an email from dcblegal with their N180 Directions questionnaire filled out (no text in the email - just the attachment). I have checked the MCOL and only the three events above are listed. Do I just hold tight and wait for my N180 Directions questionnaire to be sent? Will I receive it through the post or via email?

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Yes just wait.

And if you want to be part of the push to change things in future, it's very important that people like you tell the Government NOW that:

a) you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be the SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 *almost* promised. As long as it is impartial and fully independent (and only ONE appeals service, not two involved in a race to the bottom). Only this will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court.

b).  THAT THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY A THIRD PARTY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND ENGINEERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN'.

c). Tell them about your experience and opinion. Don't be deterred that some of the MHCLG's questions are for the parking industry.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

Do it this month or in August at the latest pleeease! We will discuss it on that thread.

stoneyfaced

Thanks - I have taken a look at the consultation and will return to it.

The N180 Directions questionnaire came through the post.

I have downloaded the N180 and emailed it to dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk. I have only received an automated reply from DCB Legal so far.

Nellymoser

I think that email address for cnbc is wrong. I'm sure it ends gov.uk but recheck the list in the Template defence thread.

stoneyfaced

Nellymoser said:

I think that email address for cnbc is wrong. I'm sure it ends gov.uk but recheck the list in the Template defence thread.

Thank you! I have corrected the email in my original comment and resent. I have now received both automated responses.