Civil national Business Centre letter for DCB Legal

DCBlegalCNBC

Hi...I'm sorry for asking a basic question but I have looked through the forum and also case studies but I can't seem to find the checklist that relates to me, could someone please direct me to the correct Post that I would find this on?

I received a PCN in May 2025 from NPC for parking in a parent & child bay at a health club, appealed to them initially when received (I've had a few of these in the past and paid them but this time I was fed up and appealed), however the appeal was rejected.

This in turn led to numerous letters from DCB Legal, that I ignored and did not respond to.

As of issue Date 30th September, I received what looks like a more formal letter from HM Courts & Tribunal Service requesting that I either pay up or respond to them within 14 days (5 days from now). I of course am not willing to pay, since I have a parent and child badge for the health club and explained this to NCP (although I do not have any photographic evidence of my own and it is unclear in the photos they sent me); how best do I respond to the CCJ threat of a letter please?

Many thanks!

DE_612183

1. Read the newbies thread
2, Complain to the landowner

1505grandad

Please clarify the full name of the ppc as you have quoted two different sets of initials  -  guess it is National Car Parks Ltd.

Coupon-mad

how best do I respond to the CCJ threat of a letter please?

You'll be using the Template Defence - top of the Forum. Also read post 2 of the NEWBIES thread which explains what happens when.

  

DCBlegalCNBC

Thank-you guys, I did complain to the landowner straight away but they have outsourced all of their car parks to National Parking Control Group (NPC) and are not taking any responsibility for their car parks.

I've also gone through the newbies thread and thank-you for pointing me to Post 2 of the thread, I've now found the correct section and understand the process a bit better. I will use the Template Defence and update on my progress.

DCBlegalCNBC

Quick question regarding this section:

"Use the Template Defence shown in the post below...

...unless you have a CEL (in-house only), Elms Legal, Gladstones or Moorside Legal claim (and also specifically for DCB Legal claims for ParkingEye or Group Nexus / CP Plus) in which case, paragraph 3 can be the wording re CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande, here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81571257/#Comment_81571257"

National Parking Control sent my case to DCB Legal and they are who the most recent letters I've received have come from. Does the thread mean that I should NOT use the wording re CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande for paragraph 3 and I should instead use my own?

Gr1pr

Check your POC on the claim form,  is the actual breach identified   

If not,  add Chan and Akande 

Read other recent similar threads for paragraph 3 wording,  including NPC Dcb Legal 

Coupon-mad

It's really easy to tell. Just read the POC.

1505grandad

"...,.,all of their car parks to National Parking Control Group (NPC) and are not taking any responsibility for their car parks."

Whoops!! I guessed wrong  -  so essential to provide correct info please.

Le_Kirk

DCBlegalCNBC said:

As of issue Date 30th September, I received what looks like a more formal letter from HM Courts & Tribunal Service requesting that I either pay up or respond to them within 14 days (5 days from now). I of course am not willing to pay, since I have a parent and child badge for the health club and explained this to NCP (although I do not have any photographic evidence of my own and it is unclear in the photos they sent me); how best do I respond to the CCJ threat of a letter please?

With an issue date of 30/09/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 05/10/25 and before 19/10/25

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 03/11/25

DCBlegalCNBC

Thank-you all for your help with this so far, sorry for the silence. I've now drafted para 3 as below, should I be admitting to having parked there even though I had displayed a permit? The pictures taken by the attendant have a reflection where the permit was placed so you can't see it in the pictures at all. Or is this too much detail and do I not include this?

'Upon receipt of the initial charge, this was immediately appealed with the Claimant. Yes, the defendant parked in a Parent and Child bay and yes children were present at the time and yes a valid permit was present and displayed on the dashboard. The Claimant's agent clearly ignored the permit and subsequently issued a Parking Charge and went as far as taking images of the car by way of their proof. Needless to say, the Claimant rejected the appeal and would not accept any follow-up appeals. This is the second time the Defendant has been unfairly charged by the claimant, the first being last year when an appeal was also rejected and the Defendant paid the charge to stop the constant flood of letters that were being sent out.'

Would the rest of the wording suffice or do I need to include something like the below as well from https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81571257/#Comment_81571257?

'With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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 the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim''