Claim form from DCBL for 2 parking invoices

Gather

Hi Everyone. 

I have received a N1SDT with the claimant as DCB Legal (DCBL) issued 16th July. See below photo for 2 separate parking incidents at David Lloyd Gym.  I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I have not accepted that I was the driver. 

I sent the appeal as normal to NPC on receiving the two invoices with a comprehensive response regarding the signs, lighting, etc etc from a pro forma I have used in the past.  Fully expecting the usual denial of appeal, I had my POPLA response all ready.  After a few weeks of nothing happening on BOTH charges, I received money demanding letters etc - all par for the course.  When I responded to say that I had never received the result of the appeal on either instance - and more importantly, the POPLA information, they comically sent me a screenshot of a line on a spreadsheet to say it had been sent.  I then just ignored the continuation of the silly letters saying what I owed etc until receiving the N1SDT on the 19th July. 

I completed the AOS on the same day (19th July) - I didn't wait for the 5 days because I was going to be busy etc. 

I am now composing my defence and I note the 10 point template from CouponMad (Thank you) where I input my defence into paragraph 3. 

The two invoices are for 

1. Parking in the disabled bay. Before the gates of hell open up on me by the righteous on here, the driver will state that they were actually picking up a registered blue badge person from the bistro in the gym and because the driver of my car was not the person who dropped her off, did not have the blue badge with them, it was with the disabled person. 

My original appeal did state that the yellow paint on the ground is not recognised and that the actual blue badge does not need to be used on private land unless the agreement with the local authority is in place etc etc. This was along with the issues with lighting and legibility of signs etc.

2. Not parking in a marked bay

Basically, no spaces left, the driver was late for a class so they put it at the far end of the car park where it was not causing any obstruction. Lighting poor and no signs near to the location. I since took photos and showed how dark it was with no signs and sent it with the appeal to NPC. 

I also took photos of the entrance to the car park - again dark but there are no signs at the barriered entrance. 

So, knowing that DCBL normally fold when they get further into the court process, will the fact they are lumping two invoices together change their willingness to proceed? Do we have examples either way from others?  

I note on their POC at point 2, they mention both parking occasions but on point 3, they only mention the disabled badge claim. I assume from that they are suggesting that both occasions I parked in a disabled bay or they are not offering any claim against me parking out of a bay? 

And because I only have a short response in section 3 for it to fit on the MCOL site, what areas would you suggest I focus on? 

Any and all help greatly appreciated 

Coupon-mad

knowing that DCBL normally fold when they get further into the court process, will the fact they are lumping two invoices together change their willingness to proceed? Do we have examples either way from others?

We have examples of both! They might continue to court, as it's two PCNs but they are probably more likely to discontinue.

Remove para 10 of the Template Defence to give yourself more space if you need it but DON'T fill in the blanks by saying what the other PCN was actually for!

You can say:

Even if the vehicle was in a disabled bay once, it was properly parked to pick up a disabled passenger who needed the driver's assistance and she had her Badge ready. The Claimant's ticketer lurked covertly and made no attempt to observe what was happening. And this did not occur twice. It is denied that the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay on two occasions. The pleadings are incorrect.

You can then add a para about the signs being dark & the extra point I posted re a David Lloyd NPC sign this week. Search for it!

Gather

Coupon-mad said:

knowing that DCBL normally fold when they get further into the court process, will the fact they are lumping two invoices together change their willingness to proceed? Do we have examples either way from others?

We have examples of both! They might continue to court, as it's two PCNs but they are probably more likely to discontinue.

Remove para 10 of the Template Defence to give yourself more space if you need it but DON'T fill in the blanks by saying what the other PCN was actually for!

You can say:

Even if the vehicle was in a disabled bay once, it was properly parked to pick up a disabled passenger who needed the driver's assistance and she had her Badge ready. The Claimant's ticketer lurked covertly and made no attempt to observe what was happening. And this did not occur twice. It is denied that the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay on two occasions. The pleadings are incorrect.

You can then add a para about the signs being dark & the extra point I posted re a David Lloyd NPC sign this week. Search for it!

Apologies CouponMad, I have been searching your posts for July - do you mean this post and the NCP picture list?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81532797/#Comment_81532797

Coupon-mad

No.

Clue: search for 'David Lloyd'.

Second clue: it was this week.

Gather

In case it is helpful for those in similar circumstances in the future with David Lloyd, here is the link CouponMad refers to.  It did not appear on a search for David Lloyd. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81561038/#Comment_81561038

Coupon-mad

It does.

You just had to change the search to NEWEST or filter it by posts only by me.

Gather

Coupon-mad said:

knowing that DCBL normally fold when they get further into the court process, will the fact they are lumping two invoices together change their willingness to proceed? Do we have examples either way from others?

We have examples of both! They might continue to court, as it's two PCNs but they are probably more likely to discontinue.

Remove para 10 of the Template Defence to give yourself more space if you need it but DON'T fill in the blanks by saying what the other PCN was actually for!

You can say:

Even if the vehicle was in a disabled bay once, it was properly parked to pick up a disabled passenger who needed the driver's assistance and she had her Badge ready. The Claimant's ticketer lurked covertly and made no attempt to observe what was happening. And this did not occur twice. It is denied that the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay on two occasions. The pleadings are incorrect.

You can then add a para about the signs being dark & the extra point I posted re a David Lloyd NPC sign this week. Search for it!

Thanks CouponMad

Thoughts on my defence bit below would be greatly appreciated. Am I best numbering them as I have or 3.1, 3.2 etc?  I will wrap the original points 1-2 & 4-10 around it, deleting 10 if I run out of space as you suggest. 

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 12/01/2025 and 03/02/2025, 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. Lighting in the car park is poor in hours of darkness, with no signage at or near the barriered entrance. The signage that is present in the car park is not compliant.

4. Even if the vehicle was in a disabled bay once, it was properly parked to pick up a disabled passenger who needed the driver's assistance and she had her Badge ready. The Claimant's ticketer lurked covertly and made no attempt to observe what was happening. And this did not occur twice. It is denied that the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay on two occasions. The pleadings are incorrect.

5.   Even if the Claimant's case is that parking in the bay is not allowed, the signs are sparse and the wording is prohibitive. There is nothing of value offered by a term that says 'no parking'. No contract existed. Even if the court is minded to consider the 'no parking' message as somehow contractual, the headline dark panel at the top of the sign (and at the entrance) clearly identifies the principal 'David Lloyd Clubs'. By any reasonable interpretation, the contracting party is David Lloyd Clubs, not the Claimant, and therefore the Claimant is merely an agent and has no standing to bring a claim in their own name, pursuant to Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169. Any ambiguity must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.

Coupon-mad

I'd change this:

5. Even if the Claimant's case is that parking in the bay is not allowed, the signs are sparse and the wording is prohibitive. There is nothing of value offered by a term that says 'no parking'. No contract existed. Even if the court is minded to consider the 'no parking' message as somehow contractual, the headline dark panel at the top of the sign (and at the entrance) clearly identifies the principal 'David Lloyd Clubs'. By any reasonable interpretation, the contracting party is David Lloyd Clubs, not the Claimant, and therefore the Claimant is merely an agent and has no standing to bring a claim in their own name, pursuant to Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169. Any ambiguity must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.

to this:

5.  In any event, no contract existed with the Claimant. It is believed that the signs identify the principal 'David Lloyd Clubs'. By any reasonable interpretation, the contracting party at the location is David Lloyd Clubs, not the Claimant, who is merely an agent and has no standing to bring a claim in their own name, pursuant to Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169. Any ambiguity must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.

Gather

Thanks. I'll submit today and let you know how I get on. 

Coupon-mad

Gather said:

Thanks. I'll submit today and let you know how I get on. 

Yes but surely you are sticking around in August?  Don't miss your chance to change the law.

While your case is quiet, we need you:

It's very important that people like you please join us to add weight of consumer responses to the new Public Consultation, to tell the Government 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 the public. As long as it is 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 THIRD PARTY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND OFFERING A POINTLESS 'PAYMENT PLAN' AT EXTRA COST. IT IS ABSURD THAT THIS IS EVEN LEGAL.

c). Tell them about your experience and that your case is now at court stage, precisely because (a) and (b) above mean there is no option, no safeguard for consumers EXCEPT court claims, where DCB Legal will (as usual) feign to proceed, then they'll likely discontinue. Wasting everyone's time.

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 in August pleeease! We will discuss it all in more detail in the coming weeks on that thread so do come back in a fortnight.