I Park Services Court Claim via DCB Legal - Advice needed

Sprockerdile

Hi everyone, I hope you are all enjoying the long bank holiday weekend.

Please can I ask for some help?

After receiving the below NTK in January 2025, I have followed the advice on the Newbies thread - Appealed to I Park Services - Appeal Rejected, Didn't bother with IAS, ignored the debt collector letters.

I received a Letter of Claim for £160 from DCB Legal on 15th July and replied via email on 3rd August, using the template from this site, requesting the matter be put on hold for 30 days.

I heard nothing from DCB other than an automated acknowledgement and then have been issued with a N18DT dated 18 August 2025.  The amount now claimed if £252.56 including Court fee of £35 and Legal representive's costs of £50.  I will be following the advice on Post 2 on the Newbies thread and I have also seen the DCB Legal discontinuations thread, however I feel it would be best to be prepared if an albeit unlikely court case requires my attendance.

I am therefore asking for a little advice as to what would be my best line of defence.

The facts of the case are as follows.  

My vehicle (I wasn't driving) was parked on the forecourt of what used to be the Kettering Police Station and Magistrates, on the opposite side of the road to the family dentists.  This has been used as an informal overflow car park for a good while (since around 2017), whilst the building has been up for sale.  I believe the building was sold in late 2024 but I am unable to find out who the new landowner is.

After receiving the NTK, I visited the exact spot where the vehicle was parked and took a number of photos - the parking sign up close, the location of the parking signs and the view from where the vehicle was parked.

My initial thought was that the NTK was not POFA compliant as it does not specify a period of parking, but I have since read on here that this is unlikely to stand up.

My second line of defence is the size and location of the signs.  There are no signs when entering on to the site and once you find a sign, the largest letter is only 23mm high, which doesn't exactly stand out.  In the exact place where the vehicle was parked there were no signs visible within a 360 degree view.  There are also no signs visible to the driver when leaving the car park on foot.

My third line of defence is the wording of the sign which forms the contract.  The sign states "By entering or remaining on this land you agree to abide by all of the Terms and Conditions".  The only Terms and Conditions are that "All vehicles must be in possession of a valid E-Permit".

To me this looks like an unfair contract because as soon as a vehicle enters onto the site, regardless of if s(he) parks up, the driver has unknowingly agreed to the terms and has no option to drive away without receiving a £100 charge, unless a valid E-Permit is owned.  There also doesn't appear to be a way of finding out how to obtain an E-Permit.

I would welcome any advice on these points, so I can hopefully join the many Forum members who have repelled these unwanted menaces.

Coupon-mad

I received a Letter of Claim for £160 from DCB Legal on 15th July and replied via email on 3rd August, using the template from this site, requesting the matter be put on hold for 30 days.

I heard nothing from DCB other than an automated acknowledgement and then have been issued with a N18DT dated 18 August 2025.  The amount now claimed if £252.56 including Court fee of £35 and Legal representative's costs of £50.

Are you certain you emailed DCB Legal and not DCB Ltd by mistake?  Which email did you send your LBC response to, and did you clearly as for a 30 day hold 'for seeking debt advice'? Was this definitely emailed to DCB Legal and they ignored you?

If yes, they've breached the pre-action protocol and you should add that to your para 3 of defence.

My initial thought was that the NTK was not POFA compliant as it does not specify a period of parking, but I have since read on here that this is unlikely to stand up. (I wasn't driving)

It does stand up. There are two court decisions upheld for Defendants on appeal, where this argument was made out.  Your defence should mention both persuasive appeals (it is irrelevant that they are about PPS). These are findings of error against two first instances judges, for the exact point that you noticed about your NTK:

HHJ Godsmark at Chesterfield, Premier Parking Solutions v Shoebridge:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3qd875g01icw63z9zoup0/Shoebridge-v-Premier-Parking-Solutions-Chesterfield-CC-Judgment-20211126-V-Final-5.pdf?rlkey=98ubyzethkuj9zbr1uphak6h3&st=hp5u731a&dl=0

and HHJ Mitchell at Plymouth, Premier Parking Solutions v Brennan

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/cqf0olkzug0rzcfridtrh/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=as60tyn6mmbyhzit8f88m373o&st=jauujcvq&dl=0

Therefore there cannot be 'keeper liability' and you were not driving, so your defence is watertight.

Because they cannot hold you liable as keeper and they presumably know you were not the driver (if you told them when you appealed to I Park Services last year?) they know they are pursuing the wrong person AND they filmed the car excessively and illegally on a public road (not on private land), you could also counterclaim (done at the same time, when defending on MCOL) for a few hundred quid for yourself, if you fancy a punt based in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018. The retention of images (from a wide angled camera) and data (obtained from the DVLA) on a database or a device and their onward transmission to others (whether debt collectors, solicitors or the cloud for storage) are 'processing of personal data' within the meaning of the DPA 2018 and I-Park Services Ltd was at all material times, a data controller.

The counterclaim argument is that they breached the data principles AND the ICO Surveillance Camera Code of Practice AND the pre-action protocol AND they also breached their industry's 2024 Joint Private Parking Code of Practice (by misleading you about keeper liability in the NTK and repeating that untruth later in the POC, and by not complying with the CoP paragraph 3.4 'Material Changes'). Breach of all of these laws and Codes means they are guilty of 'misleading actions and misleading omissions' - stating that they were acting under a statute or code when they were not - which is an offence for traders, now covered by the DMCC Act 2024, landmark UK legislation which has increased consumer protection rules where there are unfair commercial practices. The DMCC Act revokes and restates the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which protect consumers from unfair commercial practices. A commercial practice will likely be unfair if it results in a consumer making a transaction that would otherwise not have been taken as a result of misleading action or omission, an aggressive practice, or a breach of professional due diligence.

All of which apply in this case.

A £300 counterclaim costs you just £35! Search the forum for keywords like 'counterclaim @Nosy'

Explained in more detail below. Read on...


There are three extra defence points (plus a Public Consultation for you to send your evidence to, showing that operators are capturing cars on the public highways):

1.  Google Streetview shows that in Sept 2024, I-Park signs were not there, so there were no restrictions:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/HW3GYTUTQt7iXa9K8

And your car was seen in early January 2025 (on the balance of probabilities, less than 4 months after I-Park put those sparse signs up).  Well, under the Joint Code of Practice 2024 there had to be extra signage, see clause 3.4. Material changes – notices:

"Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.
NOTE: Examples of material changes can include introduction of parking enforcement where none has previously applied, introduction of time-limited free parking, or reductions in the time limit within which free parking is available. Given the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of the premises."


2. The filming of the car on a public road and pavement (using a wide angle CCTV camera trained on the road and pavement, not just on the parking spaces) is excessive and in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 - see the Court of Appeal binding authority: Fairhurst v Woodard (explained in 'A' and 'B' fightback complaint suggestions below, which also shows the argument to support a counterclaim, if you decide to lodge one).


3. The photo of your car is taken on "a road to which the public has access, not only to its road surface but also of its pavement'. This quote comes from the binding Court of Appeal decision not to grant permission to appeal a High Court judgment where it was held that Dr Richard Dawood only owned the subsoil, here:



Full decision here:

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Dawood Footway Parking Sedley LJ permission refused.pdf

Double yellow lines apply across pavements too. They apply across the entire street, from property boundary to property boundary.

Even though it seems likely that your car went across onto the differently paved areas and stopped past what might be considered 'the pavement', businesses like this (with a non-barriered boundary) only own the subsoil there. In the High Court (and the CoA agreed) the judge ruled that although Dr Dawood owned the subsoil, the surface was subject to public access, so only council enforcement applied.

Explained here too in another case that relied upon that CoA judgment:

https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/worthing-manager-fined-for-parking-on-his-own-land-569832

A spokesman from Worthing Borough Council said: “The Civil Enforcement Officers are permitted to issue Penalty Charge Notices to vehicles parking in this way, whilst the land may be private, the yellow line restrictions apply from the centre of the road to the building line. In this case there is also no dropped kerb for the vehicle to access or park on the pavement. A Court of Appeal decision has held as long as the public has a right of passage over the land then the highway restriction applies.”

In your I-Park case, the wheels are half on the road (where there are double yellow lines) and half on the kerbside part of the pavement - which is indisputably pavement maintained by the council and where the public can access. It's certainly not part of the tarmac that possibly attempts to delineate the supposed 'private land': And it looks like there is also no dropped kerb to access the pavement, so there is no right of way across here, the whole lot is 'road' and the rationale used by Worthing Borough Council applies here too:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/VceBMxnUwPYERxJ17

Certainly the pavement is subject to the double yellows and subject to this Traffic Order:

https://northamptonshire.traffweb.app/traffweb/1/TrafficOrders

In view of this image, as well as defending your case, you should also fight back in 3 robust ways:

A) Complain to the North Northamptonshire Council that I-Park Services have a covert CCTV camera set up in breach of the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, such that this 24/7 camera is covertly filming every vehicle and every pedestrian on that restricted part of London Road, a place where a 2020 Traffic Order applies. Only the council can monitor and enforce parking restrictions on that road and pavement to which the public has access; ref Camden Council v Dawood, so the highway restrictions apply in the place where I-Park are filming vehicles:

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Dawood Footway Parking Sedley LJ permission refused.pdf

Press for the Council to investigate and stop I-Park from issuing private parking charges based on images taken of cars on the public highway/pavement, a place where the Traffic Order must take precedence. Even if the car moved across to the paved area (habitually used for years as an overflow parking area for the dentists opposite) there is no dropped kerb and no clear boundary, so the business will only own the subsoil. In Fairhurst v Woodard (2021) it was established that unjustified and excessive filming from cameras like this can breach data protection laws. Specifically, the UK Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR, if the cameras captured personal data (a VRM and a driver who was not on private land but was captured on the public highway) without lawful justification. At para 135 of Fairhurst, it was held:

"In relation to the Driveway Camera [...] I do not consider that the Defendant has satisfied me that this is necessary for the purposes of his legitimate interests. The Driveway Camera only collects data from outside the Defendant’s property [...] it is not legitimate for the Defendant to carry out [...] surveillance of a road leading to a car park used by others {...when his...} property could be protected in a lesser way that does not sacrifice the privacy of the Claimant and the other users of the Driveway, for example by a camera that does have a close focus on only the cars in his parking spaces. [...]  I am satisfied that the Defendant’s processing of the Claimant’s personal data by means of the Driveway Camera is not lawful. [...]I am satisfied that the Claimant’s claim that the Defendant has breached the provisions of the DPA 2018 and the UK GDPR succeeds."

The judge in Fairhurst found that footage could be an issue if it captured more than necessary for the property's security. Which this 24/7 camera used by I-Park does, and it is using the unlawful image (where the vehicle is not on private land) to issue 'PCNs' in a place where only real council PCNs may be enforced. Tell them this is no different than if a random local was hanging around affixing fake PCNs to windscreens of cars moving across that pavement, and the Council must stop I-Park immediately.

B. Complain online to I-Park and tell them that you are about to report them to the Information Commissioner (to complain to the ICO, you have to raise a complaint first, and exhaust their published complaints procedure) about the excessive filming of your car on the public road/pavement, which is not 'private land'.

Explain the complaint to I-Park (and later to the ICO, after I-Park fob you off) with this information: 

They reproduced image(s) on their website, and on the Notice to Keeper, and they shared images with third party debt collectors but the camera has collected images (data) outside of the boundaries of the property. This breaches the principles set out in Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (now part of the Data Protection Act 2018 in UK law) per the Court of Appeal judgment in Fairhurst v Woodard (2021) . Whilst the findings in that authority included consideration of both video and audio recordings, the judge specifically considered whether a 'driveway camera' trained to record images outside of the parking spaces was lawful. It was not.

In Fairhurst, the Information Commissioner provided Guidance on the meaning of ‘transparently’ in which she says that “Transparent processing is about being clear, open and honest with people from the start about who you are, and how and why you use their personal data”. The court was satisfied that the first data principle was breached, as it could not be said that the cameras processed data fairly or in a transparent manner; and the second principle, as data was not collected for a specified or explicit purpose: one particular camera was supposed to be focussed only on car parking spaces but the court was satisfied that it had a very wide field of view and captured the Claimant’s personal data as she drove in and out. 

(When they fob the complaint off, next month, up the ante and complain to the Information Commissioner, whose findings could support your counterclaim and defence).

C.  Please do the Public Consultation before it closes in ten days' time!

See my next post, to keep it clear in your mind and to encourage you to do this as well as defending, please.

Coupon-mad

And do this on or before 5th September! 

PLEASE bookmark this thread below and do the government's Public Consultation.

Their proposals are wrong and in some parts,  anti-consumer. We must stop them.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline (next week).

We understand that you may need some pointers.

It looks laborious and you may not be that familiar with the worst conduct of this scam industry, we get that. It doesn't matter - no previous knowledge is needed - you can call out a scam industry with our help, with little preparation needed and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread.

Any questions on the Consultation please ask - on the dedicated thread - but I've covered up to question 20 already in that first post and I will add more tonight.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please! Your case is great evidence of 'why cases end up going to court' because the PCN isn't just spurious, it is unlawful and unenforceable. And appealing was futile and by the time DCB group had greedily added a disproportionate £70, there was no way you were paying it.

That add-on has the effect of driving people to court for resolution.

Sprockerdile

Wow, thank you so much for your invaluable advice, Coupon-mad. I will work through all the points you have provided.

I definitely emailed the correct company using the info@dcblegal.co.uk email address.  I included the below paragraph taken from your template

”If you choose to continue the recovery route I am obliged to inform you that I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that 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 will fire off my AOS asap and then make sure I complete the Public Consultation before the deadline 🙂

Gr1pr

No need to fire anything off, just login to MCOL via your government gateway account and complete the AOS online 

Sprockerdile

Sorry, that’s what I meant 😂

Sprockerdile

So, I have emailed the Data Protection Officer at I Park Services to complain about their camera’s excessive filming of my vehicle on a public road and I have contacted North Northants Council to report the camera and I Park’s filming of every pedestrian and vehicle on the controlled part of London Road. I have also completed the Consultation.

Just have to draft my defence now.

In the meantime, I have today received the following in reply to my response to DCB Legal’s letter of claim:

“We write to acknowledge safe receipt of your formal response to our Letter of Claim sent to you in respect of this matter.

Having considered your response, our position in respect of this matter remains as per our Letter of Claim. We note that despite your points of dispute, there is an absence of any evidence in support of the same so that we may consider this with our Client. If you do have evidence which you believe supports your dispute, please furnish us with the same within the 30 days afforded to you.

As it stands, the initial 30 day timeframe under the Pre-Action Protocol remains, and County Court proceedings will be issued following expiry of this 30 day period, without any further reference to you.

We strongly recommend that you contact a member of our dispute resolution team on 0203 434 01427, as a matter of urgency so we may discuss this matter with you and avoid a Claim being issued against you.

If you are at all unsure of your legal position, you may wish to seek independent legal advice.”

I am a little confused though, because they have already commenced County Court Proceedings.

Coupon-mad

It's because what they do is like a machine (steamroller litigation) so the person sending that LBC has just generated a template reply and not checked the status of the case.

Don't forget that a £300 counterclaim costs you just £35! Search the forum for keywords like:

counterclaim @Nosy

or

counterclaim @1xvp1

Please show us the POC for this claim dated 18th August. When did you do the AOS?

Sprockerdile

Thank you @Coupon-mad

The AOS was lodged on 26/08/25 but after 4pm so technically the 27/08/25.

Whilst I am prepared to fight tooth and nail to defeat this claim, due to personal circumstances, I am not sure I have the extra energy to pursue a counterclaim. 

Coupon-mad

It'll probably be discontinued anyway so no worries! Your fightback efforts so far are great!

Sprockerdile

I have drafted my Defence paragraph 3 as follows, the whole defence just fits the 122 line limit.  

3.1 The vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.  However it is denied that the Claimant has met the conditions specified in schedule 4, paragraph 9, subparagraph 2 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’), namely  ‘the notice must specify…the period of parking to which the notice relates’, in order to pursue unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper.  The Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) issued by the Claimant does not specify a period of parking, only a time of issue, and therefore, in line with judgements issued by HHJ Godsmark at Chesterfield, Premier Parking Solutions v Shoebridge and HHJ Mitchell at Plymouth, Premier Parking Solutions v Brennan, is non POFA compliant.  As a result, the basis of recovery against the Defendant falls away.

3.2 The signage does not conform to the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, the largest font measuring just 23mm. There are no signs at the entrance and exit and no signs visible within a 360 degree view of where the vehicle was parked.

3.3 The site has been used previously as an informal car park, which can be verified from Google Maps Streetview from June 2023 and September 2024. Under the Joint BPA and IPC Code of Practice 2024 extra signage should have been displayed for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of change of site usage see clause 3.4.Material changes – notices. The Defendant requires the Claimant to verify the exact date that the parking restrictions came into effect and to confirm that additional signs were erected at the entrance and the date that these were taken down.

3.4 The signs at this site, state that “By entering or remaining on this land you agree to abide by all the Terms and Conditions” - there is no option to decline making the contract unfair and unenforceable. This wording, combined with no option to obtain a parking permit once the vehicle enters the site effectively creates a honey trap for all vehicles without a valid E-Permit.

3.5 The CCTV camera set up by the Claimant is in breach of the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, such that this 24/7 camera is covertly filming on a restricted part of London Road, where a 2020 Traffic Order applies. Only North Northamptonshire Council can monitor and enforce parking restrictions on that road and pavement to which the public has access; ref Camden Council v Dawood (2009).

3.6 The filming of the car on a public road and pavement not just on the parking spaces is excessive and in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 - see the Court of Appeal binding authority: Fairhurst v Woodard 2021, where it was established that unjustified and excessive filming from cameras like this can breach data protection laws, specifically the UK Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR.

3.7 The Claimant’s Solicitor DCB Legal, has ignored the Defendant’s request on 3 August 2025 to place the matter on hold for an additional 30 days to seek debt advice in a blatant breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017.

Any feedback would be welcome, I need to submit my defence by this Friday, as I am away then until 20th September, which is my deadline.