NPC/DCB court claim June 2025 (corrected)

victim7

Dear Team of experts,

I have received the below court claim for a parking contravention that took place in October 2024.

I have done my acknowledgment online and i think i now need to email my defence by 30th July.

I would be grateful if you could have a look at my drafted paragraph 3 and give me constructive feedback.

For reference, here is a link to my original post:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6584467/got-a-bogus-pcn-need-help-and-advice-to-challenge-please#latest

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 24/10/2024, 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 Due to the length of time, the Defendant has no recollection of the day in question. The Claimant did not follow correct procedure in issuing PC, incorrect as warden has taken alleged ‘picture evidence’ from another vehicle driver seat and picture of sign is obstructed and inconclusive. No PC was handed to the Defendant. The Defendant was unaware of parking restrictions in place. 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 a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions.

3.2 The evidence of observation is only 20 seconds. This does not give defendant enough time to read any sign and decide whether or not to stop/park in the bay. Also, location of alleged contravention is incorrect, the vehicle was on Palmer Road, Nine Elms, SW11 4FA, not Prince of Wales drive, SW8 4AA.

3.3 The Claimant’s response to appeal incomplete and inconclusive (see attached). No reason was given as to why the appeal was unsuccessful. Also, no code was given for the Defendant to make any further appeal to an independent adjudicator.

Coupon-mad

I will do the new template defence this week - shorter - as I'm about to go on holiday & am aware it is needed. The advice will change as we are going to tell defendants to use MCOL and put in a less wordy defence.

Gimme a day! Hold up.

victim7

Coupon-mad said:

I will do the new template defence this week - shorter - as I'm about to go on holiday & am aware it is needed. The advice will change as we are going to tell defendants to use MCOL and put in a less wordy defence.

Gimme a day! Hold up.

Hi buddy, any update on this please?

victim7

Hey guys! Thank you @Coupon-mad as I’ve just seen the updated template. However, I’ve already done the AOS on the MCOL. Can I still submit my defence on the MCOL despite this or must I still email as previously? 

Also, I’m mainly looking for advice and feedback on my paragraph 3 to 3.3. Does it all sound good or do you think I need to make some edits?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

I'd remove 3.3 as you don't send attachments with a defence. Save that for WS stage.

And remove this unnecessary (repetitive) bit to save lines to fit it in MCOL, and if need be, also remove the final paragraph of the Template:

"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 a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions."

Coupon-mad

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 promised would come. As long as it is impartial and fully independent (and only ONE appeals service, not two involved in a race to the bottom) that 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 THUG THIRD PARTY DEMANDING MORE MONEY FOR OFFERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN' AT A PREMIUM COST.

c). Tell them about your experience / opinions.

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.