Claim Issued (DCB Legal/Vehicle Control Service LTD)

James90210

Hi all - I've not made a post until this point having followed the stickied guide.

Unfortunately a recent letter chain has now resulted in a claim being issued with a May 2nd issue date. (not related to my previous posts through the years - they have all fallen silent with no further updates).

I'm just in the process of acknowledging service through the MCOL website, but want to check something first.

I already have a government HMRC ID setup as I'm registered self employed. The claim form has been issued to the vehicle keepers address, which doesn't match the address of my HMRC account.

When registering with MCOL - am I safe to use my actual registered address (matching my HMRC account) or - must I use the address the vehicle is registered at, which the claim form was sent to??

Thanks for all the help and advice you folks volunteer, it's truly indispensable.

Gr1pr

All you need is a government gateway account,  then login to MCOL and complete the AOS online 

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

Car1980

I'd stick to the address the claim was sent to.

You won't have a problem because it's the address on the V5, which is an address at which you can be conveniently contacted, yes? 

James90210

Thank you both.

I registered with MCOL in my name and address matching the V5 (yes I'm easily contactable at both addresses) and submitted the acknowledgment of service on the 9th of May.

Issue date from the claim form is: May 02 2025
POC: attached below

To give some detail on what exactly happened. I had a lunch meeting at a pub for an hour. The pub had a carpark attached at the rear, sandwiched next to 2 nondescript, brown, 2 story buildings. Turns out that despite the pub being attached to the car-park. It's not their land to manage, and the 2 nondescript buildings are a work place of some description and manage/own the land instead.

So I'm not really sure what's the best angle to defend this from if anyone can advise. I realise feigning ignorance doesn't hold up as a form of defence. But to anyone with common sense and a form of morality - it's clearly a form of easy entrapment for them.

I returned to the premises to take some photographs of the signage and layout of the land. There are 2 missing signs on the premises, including the very first sign as you enter off the street. I can attach these photos if needs be, I just didn't want to upload something which may jeopardise any defence by potential forum snoopers identifying the case.

Many thanks for all the help.

Coupon-mad

Yes please show all the photos.

Car1980

If they didn't want pub users to use the pub they would of course put up a clear sign saying so.

If they wanted pub users to use their land by mistake for profit they would make no mention of the pub and talk only about permits.

I mean, that's how you act in the best interests of the landowner isn't it? Get rid of all those pesky pub guests by failing to say it's not a pub car park.

There is some stuff in Beavis regarding landowner justification for having rules (in that case a retail park). So there's some stuff to be quoted from there.

KeithP

James90210 said:

Issue date from the claim form is: May 02 2025
...and submitted the acknowledgment of service on the 9th of May.

With a Claim Issue Date of 2nd May, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 4th June 2025 to file a Defence.

That's almost 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'.

James90210

Thank you for all the responses. 

Here are some images of the car park in question. The brown buildings are the business premises that actually own the land - their entrances are outside the car park leaving just brown, non descrip rears which is partly why I assumed the car park belonged to the pub. 

The rear pub entrance which is also attached to the car park can be seen here.

Entrance to the car park (first parking sign also missing on right) 

Missing signage. 

Approx where I was parked - far end of the car park opposite the pub entrance pictured up top. 

Coupon-mad

Missing entrance signs is a breach of the Code of Practice.

1505grandad

Just thinking out loud  -  does it mean that the £70 collection fee may include VAT same as the Parking Charge?

Car1980

Think they're just trying to cover themselves in case there is a clampdown on their avoidance and they don't have to change the signs.

Signage is inadequate for your parking spot as you say. Missing signs too.

And the onus is on the claimant to make restrictions clear. "No parking for pub users" would be forbidding and not create a valid contract they might say.

So the answer is simply a large sign making clear the information that is separate from the contract. THIS IS NOT A CAR PARK FOR THE THREE TURNS AND IS NOT OWNED BY THE PUB.

No contract there, but doesn't affect the permit only scheme. Would also stop people going into the pub trying to obtain a permit, for example expecting an iPad kiosks, which are common (during which time VCS would probably pounce of course).
The side effect of doing this would of course be less PCNs issued and less profit for VCS. But more empty spaces for the landowner to have available. Oh dear, what a shame.

Where do you draw the line? If a zoo had a big car park near the entrance but it was actually owned by the boating lake along the side you would have to put up some pretty big signs saying it wasn't for the zoo. You wouldn't just say "permit holders only" and throw your hands up in the air when family after family parked there and you were making £1000 a day off the back of it when all you wanted was for people to hire your pedalos!