Help with Defence | DCB Legal & Minor Keying Error on Car Reg

TuckerJuni24

Hello. I would really appreciate some help with completing my defence for the Claim Form against DCB Legal.

Main info:

• Never received a PCN - just a ‘Reminder’ letter and then the onslaught of letters from DCBL and DCB Legal.

• PCN issued by ParkMaven for 04/07/2024. It says date issued was 08/07/24.

• Arrived at Lincoln Road Peterborough Car Park (16, Your Parking Space) at 19:38. Paid on the app at 19:40. Time was up at 21:00, left at 21:05 (within grace period).

• Up to now, I thought the PCN was received because I was 5 minutes over the time paid for because the first letter I received didn’t mention “no valid parking reservation” and only stated the times. Ignored all further letters thinking if it got to this point, I’d have a dead set defence with the ten minute grace period.

• Reading the Claim Form they put the reason as ‘No valid parking reservation’ which caused me to re-check and check my receipt and finally realised a zero and an O were the wrong way round on my car reg. Have never done this before so it didn’t even occur to me it could be a possibility. 

• Received the LBC, dated 10/4/25, and emailed DCB Legal on 7/5/25.

• Made clear I was disputing the charge on the basis of the grace period (surely this was a good opportunity to notify me this wasn’t the reason?!). Also mentioned my partner’s ill health and the stress we were under, and requested 30 days to seek debt advice. Didn’t get any response at all and they didn’t honour the 30 days.

• Claim Form was issued on 14/5/25.

Uploaded the receipt for parking, the reminder letter, DCB’s letters and claim form to a dropbox folder here: (Changed to hxxp as I’m a newbie) 

hxxps://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/csy61qpvhpepmvh3wfsfu/ALOWcsBU3Nm8XHWv6ZzOeBA?rlkey=yteje21niguclt001bfvjgey0&st=1g63u9gx&dl=0

My draft for point 3 onwards is as follows:

(I have edited the reg so only ‘O0’ is the same. I will copy the rest of the provided draft exactly, as advised.)

__________

3. The Defendant disputes the claim in full as they have only become aware of the reason for the PCN at this stage. The Claimant did not inform the Defendant of a clear reason and instead there was an initial implication it was for staying beyond the time paid for, which the Defendant knew to be false. It has only just become clear it was for a Minor Keying Error in the vehicle’s registration. As can be seen, it is very difficult to notice by eye alone, rather than a computer system which would flag it up, because of the similarities between 0 and O. The vehicle registration was entered as ‘D0O4RRG’ rather than ‘DO04RRG’. It is the Defendant’s case that the communication received was deliberately misleading or vague, and did not provide any level of detail that would allow them to understand the reason for the PCN and thus be able to dispute it successfully.

4. As per the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice (COP), Section 17.4 states: “Examples of a minor keying error could include: Numbers and/or letters in the wrong order (but where the correct registration is still recognisable” 

 hxxps://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/Version91.2.2024.pdf

5. The BPA’s COP also states in Section 17.3: “Motorists, car park operators, service providers and equipment manufacturers all have a responsibility in ensuring that obvious and inadvertent errors do not lead to unjustified charges”. As it is very difficult to notice the keying error on paper, by eye only, it is the Defendant’s case that the Claimant had a responsibility to ensure the driver was aware that the keying error was the reason for the PCN being issued so that an appropriate appeal could be made. By implying that timing was the reason for the PCN, they failed in this responsibility. 

6. Until now, the Defendant believed the reason for the PCN being issued was the departure time of 21:05 and so was disputing the claim on the basis that the vehicle had left the car park within the mandatory ten minute grace period.

7. According to the Claimant, on 04/07/2024 at 19:38:21 the Defendant entered the car park. At 19:40, payment for parking was made (as per Receipt 4408428). Departure time is listed as 21:00. The Claimant states the vehicle departed at 21:05:29. As this was the only specific information received, the Defendant was led to believe this was the reason for issuing the PCN and as this was within the 10 minute grace period, was challenging the PCN on this basis.

8. As per the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice, of which ParkMaven Limited is member of, Section 13.3 states: “Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN.” 

9. The first point of contact the Defendant received from the Claimant was a letter headed with ‘parkmaven’ and ‘REMINDER’. This letter was not dated. No initial PCN was received.

10. This letter reads as follows: 

“On 04/07/2024 vehicle DO04RRG entered the Lincoln Road Peterborough Car Park at 19:38:21 and departed at 21:05:29 on 04/07/2024. A Parking Charge Notice was issued via post on 08/07/2024 in accordance with the Parking Terms and Conditions as outlined on the signage at the site.

The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land, the car park is managed by ParkMaven Ltd (The Creditor), and parking tariffs apply for the full duration that a vehicle is parked or a parking charge will be incurred.”

11. It is the Defendant’s case that this wording could easily be understood as the PCN being received due to being outside of the duration in which the defendant had paid. As they knew they had paid for the parking, but were in the grace period according to the letter’s timing, it was an understandable assumption to make.

12. The further persistent and harassing letters from DCBL and DCB Legal referred to a “contravention” or “breach” of the terms and conditions. Or, no reason was given at all.

13. After receiving the Claimant’s Letter of Claim, dated 10/4/25, the Defendant responded to the Claimant’s solicitors on 7/5/25. In this correspondence, the Claimant made clear that they were disputing the charge on the basis of the grace period. 

14. No response was received and instead the Claim Form was issued on 14/5/25. This was a clear opportunity for the Defendant to be made aware of the reason for the PCN. This appears to have once again deliberately not been taken.

15. Also in this correspondence, the Defendant made clear that their partner, and an occupant of the vehicle, has a number of health issues and explained the stress they are under, and how the ongoing threats of debt recovery and legal action were adding to this significantly. 

16. The Defendant also formally requested that the matter be put on hold for 30 days in order to receive independent debt advice. This was also ignored and is a clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017.

18. It was only on receipt of the N1SDT Claim Form and completing this defence that the Defendant read in the Particulars of Claim the reason given was “NO Valid Parking Reservation”. This caused them to check and re-check their receipt and eventually pick up on this minor error.

19. Had the reason been clear from the outset, the Defendant would have been able to challenge the PCN appropriately. This, according to the BPA’s COC would have led to the PCN being cancelled. “If a typing error such as this leads to a PCN being issued and the motorist appeals, the PCN must be cancelled at the first stage of appeal.” (Paragraph 17.4, COC)

________

Is there anything I should delete/edit or add?

The guidance on the template says “if you have a DCB Legal Claim you can copy the new 'Regarding the POC...' paragraph 3 from the thread by @shahib_02” but I can’t find this. Could anyone please tell me what this is?

Appreciate any help, finding this really stressful. Grateful for all the advice found so far too. Thank you.

kryten3000

Make the point that the glyph used on the standard DVLA approved font used on vehicle number plates makes no distinction between an O and a 0.  There was no keying error in the first place and ParkMaven's software is deficient if it cannot ignore the difference.  

Car1980

Just tried it on the the app. Two of these are letter Os and two are zeroes.

Stick a similar screenshot in your witness statement (if it even gets that far).

Coupon-mad

You can find shahib's thread because that username is a link! You've quoted the link. Look more carefully re what a username's posting profile shows.

However it's a little out if date now. Para 3 often looks like this, which can include a 3.1 if you want to add more, like this person did:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6608886/g24-dcb-court-claim-april-2025-homebase-parking

Le_Kirk

In my opinion that defence is too long, stick to the salient facts using the @shahib_02 defence wording, the (non) difference between O & 0 and keep the rest for the witness statement.

Coupon-mad

Le_Kirk said:

In my opinion that defence is too long, stick to the salient facts using the @shahib_02 defence wording, the (non) difference between O & 0 and keep the rest for the witness statement.

I've just deleted that username link from the template and replaced it with the one above.

  

Le_Kirk

Noted          

TuckerJuni24

kryten3000 said:

Make the point that the glyph used on the standard DVLA approved font used on vehicle number plates makes no distinction between an O and a 0.  There was no keying error in the first place and ParkMaven's software is deficient if it cannot ignore the difference.  

This is great to know, thanks. So even if I've entered it incorrectly on the app, their software should be picking it up regardless? Want to make sure I understand so I can word it properly. Thank you for your help and pointing this out 

(Sorry for the delay replying, wouldn't let me reply on my phone over the weekend)

TuckerJuni24

Coupon-mad said:

You can find shahib's thread because that username is a link! You've quoted the link. Look more carefully re what a username's posting profile shows.

However it's a little out if date now. Para 3 often looks like this, which can include a 3.1 if you want to add more, like this person did:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6608886/g24-dcb-court-claim-april-2025-homebase-parking

Found the Threads button on their profile this time, not sure how I missed it before. Cheers for the heads up! My defence seems excessively long in comparison to this. I'm better to cut most of it and stick to this would you say? Thanks for your help

TuckerJuni24

Le_Kirk said:

In my opinion that defence is too long, stick to the salient facts using the @shahib_02 defence wording, the (non) difference between O & 0 and keep the rest for the witness statement.

Appreciate the feedback. Going to redo it with that wording and cut it right down. Sorry if this is a stupid question but I can't work out where/when I need to do the witness statement. Will I receive something else that gives me the opportunity to submit it?

TuckerJuni24

Car1980 said:

Just tried it on the the app. Two of these are letter Os and two are zeroes.

Stick a similar screenshot in your witness statement (if it even gets that far).

Cheers again for this. What's the app you've screenshot here?