Defence DCBL - Myrtle Parade Liverpool

HiggsBoson8

Hello.  I have received a claim form from DCBL on behalf of NPC for an alleged PCN contravention in Myrtle Parade, Liverpool.  It came whilst I was on holiday but thankfully I was back in time to acknowledge service on MCOL (case history shows received).  

The allegation is a failure to pay for the duration of the stay.  No times are provided on the claim form, making it impossible to address factually.  A period of parking was paid for on the day by the, but the previous correspondence from NPC and DCBL does not allege an overstay.  It simply says in each letter that there was "a failure to pay for the duration of the stay", which I find misleading and intentionally insufficient to explain what they are actually alleging. 

Using the incredible helpful thread, I have drafted a 10-paragraph defence but wanted to sense check it here first.  Is that okay?   

Gr1pr

It wont be the debt collectors DCBL , it's from NPC via DCB Legal 

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below and also post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

Post the 2 or 3 paragraphs that you have altered , we dont need to see the rest of the template defence,  because you wont have changed anything 

HiggsBoson8

This is my only addition to the template:

3.  A recent persuasive appeal judgement in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgement, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.  The POC highlights the “Reason” for the claim as “Failure To Pay For The Duration Of The Stay” but does not highlight what the duration of the stay was and when it was from until, making it impossible for the Defendant to determine who was driving and therefore provide a more detailed defence.

HiggsBoson8

The Issue Date is 11 August 2025.  AOS sent on 23 August and received on 26 August.  

POC reads:

1. D is indebted to C for a PC issued to vehicle [VRN included] at Myrtle Parade, Liverpool, L77AA.
2. The dates of contravention are [Date provided] and the D was issued with PC(s) by the C. 
3. The D is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract).  Reason: Failure to Pay for the Duration of the Stay.
4. In the alternative, the D is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4. 
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170.00 being the total of the PC(s) and damages. 
2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.03 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees. 

HiggsBoson8

Hi everyone.  I intend on submitting this defence in the next 48 hours.  It is not an issue if no one has anything to input, but I thought I would check if anyone had any input or thoughts. 

Gr1pr

The POC are pleaded,  failure to pay,  so remove the Chan and Akande sections

Coupon-mad

Yep that won't be right. Put some facts instead.

HiggsBoson8

Thanks both, hugely appreciated.  As there are no times I have no idea if the parking was paid for.  I presume a case of simply summarising this factually?

Coupon-mad

Yes, your para 3 needs to respond to this allegation: Failure to Pay for the Duration of the Stay.

HiggsBoson8

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, your para 3 needs to respond to this allegation: Failure to Pay for the Duration of the Stay.

Thank you, really appreciate the input.  The issue I have is that they haven't specified times so cannot confirm who was driving.  I am confident if parked, a ticket would have been bought but that will require scouring across multiple bank accounts and credit cards of numerous individuals to find evidence.  

I was planning on keeping it simple - more details required to defend the allegation, rather than provide a multi-layered defence.  

HiggsBoson8

I am also happy to complete the consultation if it is still open, as I am sick and tired of how private parking companies operate.