PCN for Parking in Disabled Bay

evasivedavid

Hi guys,

So as the title suggests, I have a PCN for parking in a disabled bay at B&Q. i know this will be frowned upon and I myself wouldn;t usually park there, but we were in a rush to get something and there were literally dozens of empty spaces so it would make no difference to anyone on this particular day. 

Anyway, a company called Nexus initially contacted me, who were ignored. then came DCB LTD, who were also ignored. I've now got their "sister company" DCBL Legal on my case, and they're saying if I don;t get in touch then it's likely to go to court.

Is there any way of defending this and if so, what argument should I use? I'm worried they'll whack a load of additional charges on and if I've not got a legal leg to stand on, maybe I'm just best paying?

Any help would be great

evasivedavid

I asked ChatGPT to construct a defence based on the defence template and my specifics... How's it looking?

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration [INSERT REG], was parked on the material date. However, liability is denied. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the contrary.

3. The Defendant denies being the driver and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the driver's identity. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 has not been complied with. As such, the Claimant cannot hold the Defendant liable under statute.

4. Preliminary matter: The Defendant draws attention to the persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44), where HHJ Murch ruled that the claim failed to identify the conduct alleged to have given rise to liability. This defence is served in reliance upon the established principles of proper pleadings.

5. The claim is entirely without merit for the following reasons:

a. No breach occurred
The Defendant denies that any conduct amounted to a breach of terms. The Claimant alleges the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay, yet failed to clearly mark this bay in a way visible and compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The Defendant avers that the signage was inadequate, and the bay markings unclear.

b. Lack of clear signage
Signage in the car park was either absent, not prominent, not legible from a driver's position, or did not comply with the BPA Code of Practice. Any alleged contract would therefore be incapable of being formed, particularly in relation to a bay reserved for blue badge holders.

c. No contract was formed
Even if signage existed, it was incapable of forming a contract. There is no evidence of a properly communicated contractual offer that was accepted. The terms, especially for disabled bays, were not communicated clearly or with reasonable prominence.

d. No landowner authority
The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has standing to issue charges on this land, including a copy of a contemporaneous contract with the landowner. A mere licence agreement or outdated contract is insufficient.

e. Non-compliance with PoFA
The Notice to Keeper was delivered more than 14 days after the alleged event. Under PoFA Schedule 4, the keeper cannot be held liable in this situation.

f. Exaggerated and false costs
The added £70 or £60 described as ‘damages’ or ‘debt recovery costs’ is a false cost invented to intimidate, and a known abuse of process, per Excel v Wilkinson (2020) and Hussain v AJH Films Ltd (2019). The original parking charge would have been no more than £100.

1. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success and being a waste of court time.

2. In the event this matter proceeds to a hearing, the Defendant will seek a full costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct by the Claimant.

Statement of Truth: I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.
Signed: [YOUR FULL NAME]
Dated: [TODAY'S DATE]

Coupon-mad

Truly terrible and it includes lies:

"The Defendant denies being the driver"!

We hate Chat GPT. It is AWFUL for most things except maybe maths and constructing snappy social media posts. Otherwise, it's a piece of fluff AI.

You would simply use our Template Defence and (as ever, because we do this daily) DCB Legal will discontinue the claim eventually because they aren't looking for hearings.

We absolutely abhor non-disabled motorists parking in disabled bays, so (brief or not) never do that again. It is NOT acceptable. But the Template Defence is at the top of the forum in the pinned Announcement threads. Looks like you missed it?

We won't link an Announcement thread. See my signature for how to get to page one again, with one click:

evasivedavid

Thanks for the response. Yeah I won't be doing it again I promise!!  

I did come across a template, but I'm not sure what to add to it as I don't know wha grounds I'll be fighting the matter on, if that makes any sense? 

evasivedavid

that's the letter if that helps any....

Coupon-mad

You can just say the signs & lines of the bays were unclear and there was no terms & conditions sign in view.

evasivedavid

Hi, 

So I've now found the tmeplate and edited to include my specifics... This is what I have... would thsi be ready to submit? I anticipate a letter very soon.

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

3. The Defendant notes that the Parking Charge Notice was issued outside of the statutory 14-day window prescribed by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for keeper liability. The alleged event occurred on 25/01/2025, yet no communication was received before 14/02/2025. This delay extinguishes any keeper liability under POFA. Further, the location’s bay markings and lines were unclear, the signage was inadequate, and no terms and conditions sign was visible from the position of parking, meaning no clear contract could be formed.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Coupon-mad

I think your 14 day POFA point is wrong. Being a disabled bay, I think there was a windscreen PCN affixed to the windscreen first. Thus a NTK a month later is exactly the right timeline.