Advice: NPC/DCBLegal Money Claim Received

fuj1

Hi All, towards the end of September last year I booked an overnight stay in an Airbnb, which was an apartment with an National Parking Control (NPC) Group managed communal car park.  The owner of the property provided a parking permit which I displayed in my windscreen whilst parked in the appropriate bay.

A while after my stay I recieved a fine from NPC on the basis of "A valid NPC permit must be displayed in the front windscreen at all times" accompanied with a photo of my vehicle, in which you can see the permit (a white piece of A4 paper) is in fact displayed.  The only plausible explanation for NPC's claim would be that the displayed permit had expired.

I (wrongly) called the company and explained that I was displaying the provided parking permit provided by the property owner, however NPC were of no help and refused to cancel the fine and I subsequently refused to pay it.

I have recieved the usual DCBL letters, which thanks to the advice on this forum I ignored, I recieved the DCBLegal letter to which I have replied using the forum suggested response and today I have receieved HM Courts & Tribunals Service letter for a money claim, issued 29th May 2025 for £263.84 (amount claimed = £178.84, court fee = £35.00, legal representative costs = £50.00).

I understand I must respond to this and can do online, which would be my preference, but before I do I would really appreciate your collective thoughts on my circumstances and any advice for suggested defence(s) which is most likely to secure a favourable outcome for me.

Please do let me know if any further details are required to help you to help me win this!

Many thanks in anticipation.

Gr1pr

Get the AOS done online on MCOL ASAP  first 

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

Then start to adapt the couple of paragraphs in the template defence and post your draft paragraphs only below,  not the rest of the template 

Discussion of the incident and circumstances can come later 

Ps, there was no fine, just an invoice 

fuj1

Thanks for the quick response Gr1pr!

AOS is now completed via MCOL.

Please see POC with redacted VRM, as requested. (Hoping the size will be okay in the post).



I will start to try and piece together a defence, but are you, or anyone else able to suggest a potential angle for defence with consideration to my circumstances please?

Invoice...yes, exactly! Noted the proper term! Thank you.

Gr1pr

I would suggest that you draft your 2 paragraphs,  2 & 3 from the template defence,  then post them below for advice and comments,  same as everyone else does ( study recent DCB Legal cases too, for inspiration   )

Any potential angle would be a paragraph 3.1,  with plenty of time to discuss it now that the AOS was completed 

So follow the process first,  no overthinking it

fuj1

First attempt at defence paragraphs 2 & 3, I welcome any improvements and/or advice on proper wording and stronger defence. Thank you.

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 but NOT the driver at the time.

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 21/09/2024, 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 The defendant was staying overnight at the address referred to in POC paragraph 1 as an authorised visitor, a parking permit was provided by the owner of the property and was clearly displayed in the front windscreen of the vehicle as instructed.  The photo included within the original NPC PCN provides evidence of the parking permit being clearly displayed.  

3.2 To the best of the defendant's knowledge the provided parking permit was valid and displayed clearly as directed, there is no evidence to suggest any contravention of parking rules have been breached in this instance.

1505grandad

"I (wrongly) called the company and explained that I was displaying the provided parking permit provided by the property owner, however NPC were of no help and refused to cancel the fine and I subsequently refused to pay it."

I cannot reconcile the above to the following statement (under a SoT) you propose in para 2:-

" However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but NOT the driver at the time."

There is no mention in your Defence that there was a driver who was not you, or that you were a passenger.

fuj1

Thanks for the response 1505grandad, my original post setting the context was a little misleading, if I could edit it I would.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, however my wife was the driver of the vehicle at the time and it was her who parked and stayed at the property mentioned.  It was my wife who spoke to both NPC and he owner of the Airbnb, however since going to DCBL/DCBLegal I have offered to fight this on her behalf as the registered keeper.  Not sure if disclosing this detail is material and whether it makes matters more complicated?

I would appreciate any advice on how best to articulate the the defence with the above considered.

Gr1pr

So you are the non driving keeper,  as the defendant,  so liability can only be transferred from the driver to you if NPC fully complied with Pofa2012,  as mentioned in the following thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6502445/ps24-ltd-gladstones-court-claim-ws-stage-2025#latest

So check if NPC complied with POFA or not , by checking the NTK PCN letter for full compliance or not, If they failed then you are not liable , end of story , wrong person in the dock  !

Coupon-mad

But to keep it simple for now just change your defence draft to tell the judge that it was the driver who did this/that (refer to your wife as 'she' and make it clear the Defendant isn't that person but is merely the keeper).

The person named on the claim form as Defendant must defend. I assume that is you?

fuj1

Thanks Coupon-mad.  Yes I am named on the claim form as the defendant.

Updated paras 2, 3.1 and 3.2 references from the "defendant" to the "driver", please do let me know if you feel this better infers that the defendant was not the driver...

2 ... However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but NOT the Driver at the time of the alleged contravention.

3 <UNCHANGED>

3.1 The Driver was staying overnight at the address referred to in POC paragraph 1 as an authorised visitor, a parking permit was provided by the Owner of the property and was clearly displayed by the Driver in the front windscreen of the vehicle as instructed.  The photo included within the original NPC PCN provides evidence of the parking permit being clearly displayed.

3.2 To the best of the Driver’s knowledge the provided parking permit was valid and displayed clearly as directed, there is no evidence to suggest any contravention of parking rules having been breached in this instance.

Coupon-mad

You need the word 'she' as I suggested (unless you are also identifying as she). That will make it crystal clear you are talking about a family member (in fact why not say that too)?

Then add to 3 these extra words too:

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 21/09/2024, as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied and the Defendant has seen no evidence that the Claimant complied with the only 'keeper liability' law on private land (it is not an automatic right under the POFA as the boilerplate POC seem to make out). 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.