DCB Legal & First Parking - 2 x university parking court claims 3 weeks apart

Pandemonium78

I'm seeking an opinion on my draft defence please.  (paras 1, 2 and 4 onwards are as per template provided).  

Also do I bother including that the PCN went to an old address (one I still have access to, car was for sale and sold shortly after, so DVLA not updated with new address)?  Or that I was away and didn't receive the PCN in time to appeal in their timeframe, blah blah?  Is it worth saying any of that?

Preamble (Worth putting this in?  My defence document regarding another matter had a similar preamble)  

1. The Defendant avers the Claimant has issued these proceedings prematurely.  The Defendant avers the Claimant has acted in contrast with the overriding objective, namely, but not limited to: CPR 1.1 (2) (c) (d) (e) and (f). 
2. The Defendant avers the Claimant has failed to engage with pre-litigation communication with the Defendant and the landowner, seeking to resolve the matter.
3. The Defendant reserves the right to raise this conduct to the attention of the Court at the point of dealing with costs.

PARA 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 30/10/2024, as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper at the time of the alleged contravention, 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 £145 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.  

i) A valid one day parking permit provided by the landowner was displayed in the vehicle in question for the duration.  The same type of permit had been displayed on other days prior to the date of the alleged contravention and no PCN issued for those dates.  The Defendant was unaware of parking restrictions in place that excluded landowner provided permits.  The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use.  The small signage was not suitable to alert any motorist exiting the car park. 

ii) The PCN was received at the registered keeper address 16 days after the date of the alleged contravention, making it non-POFA compliant.  

iii) The Defendant appealed the PCN with the Claimant, who rejected the appeal stating “the opportunity to appeal has now passed”.  The Landowner also contacted the Claimant asking for the PCN cancelled, the Claimant refused; the landowner informed the Defendant “I have been in touch with First Parking and because you didn’t appeal within the 14 days, unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done”.

Gr1pr

They had to post the NTK PCN letter to the address listed on the DVLA database,  they did, job done,  not their problem after posting the letter to that address,  the RK should have sorted something out or changed the DVLA address 

Being away is irrelevant,  the keeper should have ensured that post was checked regularly,  whilst away 

Stick to winning points, not side issues that are nothing to do with why they issued the PCN 

Pandemonium78

in other words you're saying don't bother putting any of that in.

Is my para 3 ok?

Gr1pr

I was answering your questions,  not advising you on your paragraph 3, but sometimes less is more,  so why would any defendant highlight their own errors   ?

Coupon-mad

I thought you were going to do what I advised and do two defences citing cause of action estoppel?

wait till nearer the end of your deadline to defend then could do the same defence for both and cite Henderson v Henderson. 

Also by removing the usual template defence paras 1 and 2 (not recommended to remove) you've dropped a heck of a lot of points including denial of liability, the fact that the PPC is only an agent and the info about whether you were driving or not.

Pandemonium78

Thank you both for your replies.

Paras 1 and 2 haven't been removed, they just weren't copied into the post because they are identical to the template provided (this was mentioned in the post).

Pasted here for completeness:

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 contract 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, allegations(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond.  However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that at the time of the alleged incident the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver. 

Regarding two defences, a claim pack hasn't yet been received for the second PCN, so the above is para 3 for the first one. 

Henderson v Henderson ./ cause of action estoppel will be cited in the second defence, OR in the first one as well if another claim pack from HM Courts is received before the deadline to submit defence for the first one.  At the moment HM Courts only have one claim logged against the RK.

Thank you again for your valued input.

Coupon-mad

Yes but remove this which has no legs with an admitted driver:

"ii) The PCN was received at the registered keeper address 16 days after the date of the alleged contravention, making it non-POFA compliant."

Pandemonium78

An email was received today, it was kindly making a "without prejudice save to costs" offer.
They quote the email they received on 2nd June, this is copied below, followed by their reply:

Dear Sirs/Madams,

Your Ref: ........

Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: First Parking Lap

I refer to your Letter of Claim.

Please accept confirmation that the address for service is as follows and any older addresses must be erased from your records:

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

The PCN is disputed as a parking permit provided by the landowner was displayed at all times, in addition to a driver not leaving the vehicle for the duration.

I am seeking independent debt advice and as such formally request this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists".

I have two questions, and under the PAP am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £75 represents what you call a 'Debt Recovery' fee?  If so, is this net or inclusive of VAT?  If the latter, kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is the amount for damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?


Yours faithfully 

THEIR RESPONSE:

We write in response to correspondence received in our office dated 2nd June 2025.             

We have made a record of the contents of your correspondence and noted this on your file accordingly.   

For the avoidance of doubt, a claim has now been issued against you on 29th May 2025 in the sum of £235.46. As such any court documentation received should be addressed and the relevant documents filed with the relevant institutions.    

The parking charge was not affixed to the vehicle because our client utilises Automatic Number Plate Recognition (“ANPR”) technology on the land where the parking charge was issued in order to manage the parking. This means that cameras capable of accurately recognising the vehicle registration number of a vehicle are constantly monitoring the entrance and exit to the land.  A photograph is taken of each vehicle as it enters and exits the land. Any vehicle found to have breached the terms of parking will be issued with a parking charge via the post. 

When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract and agreeing to the terms by parking and staying on the site. Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract. The breach in contract would make you liable for a parking charge.     

The terms and conditions on the signs stated that parking was permitted for vehicles clearly displaying a valid permit/ticket, covering their full time on the site or otherwise a parking charge notice would be issued. A valid permit/ticket was not on display for your full duration on the car park site on the date of contravention and as such the parking charge was issued correctly. 

Further to the above parking on the site in excess of your paid time was permitted as long as a ticket/permit was purchased for any extra time spent on the land. As no valid permit was purchased for the extra time spent on the land the parking charge was issued correctly.  

You should always be vigilant when entering any land that you are not familiar with or that you know is privately owned and there are parking terms in place. As the driver of the vehicle it is your responsibility at all material times to ensure you understand the terms and conditions operating on the land prior to exiting your vehicle. Furthermore, it is your responsibility to ensure that you have read and understood the terms operating prior to parking your vehicle.  

The Notice to Keeper was issued to you on 8th November 2024. You were afforded the opportunity to; appeal the parking charge, transfer liability to the driver (if it was not you) or make payment. Neither a successful appeal, nor an adequate nomination were received, yet payment remains outstanding.    

The Reminder Notice was issued to you upon receipt of the Notice to Keeper. This notice reiterated that payment was outstanding and confirmed that legal action may be taken and additional costs incurred if the parking charge was not paid.   

We are minded that you lodged an appeal with our client directly which was unsuccessful. To date our clients position remains the same and as such your appeal and their response is enclosed within this correspondence.  

In regard to the debt recovery fee of £70.00 being claimed, you would have been made aware of this through the signs available on the car parks site as previously mentioned above. This does not include any VAT. The HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration manual’ (VATSC06140), which was last updated on 02 September 2020, confirmed that parking charge notices falls out of the scope of VAT. There is no requirement for a VAT invoice to be issued to you.            

Further to the above, in accordance with the appeal decision made on 29th July 2020 in Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Julien [2020] EW Mis 12 (CC), it is not correct to propose this claim should be struck out as an ‘abuse of process’ due to the contractual costs claimed.          

With reference to the above, this parking charge is being pleaded as a breach of contract to which damages are payable in light of the matters raised in this correspondence.     

Pursuing a legally owed debt is not harassment. You may wish to seek independent legal advice in this regard. Our client pursuing this matter through the Small Claims Court is the correct course of action.

DCB Legal have been instructed as all previous attempts to resolve the matter have been unsuccessful.     　　　  

However, in light of the above, I can confirm that our client would be agreeable to settle this matter in the parameters outlined below.  

 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS 

 

In relation to the above matter.

I can confirm our Client would be agreeable to £165.00 in full and final settlement of this Claim. The current outstanding balance is £235.46. 　　　  

Should you be agreeable to this offer, please confirm the same within 7 days. Payment can be made via our website www.dcblegal.co.uk, by calling our office on 0203 838 7038 or via bank transfer:　 

Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: - 

• Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account 
• Sort Code: 20-24-09 
• Account Number: 60964441 　　  

When making payment please ensure you include the following reference number, ......., to enable us to allocate it to the correct case. 　   

We would ask that you kindly furnish us with your most up to date telephone number and email address, this can be emailed to us at info@dcblegal.co.uk.  

Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to make payment over the telephone or online at https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/. 

Kind Regards, 

I... M...

Administration Associate 

DCB Legal Ltd  

Tel: 0203 434 0433 | DX 23457 Runcorn 

Coupon-mad

We never need to see that:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81475719/#Comment_81475719

Pandemonium78

Thank you. I just thought it might help someone else going through the same process to see it.  It's to be ignored and plough on.