UKPC DCB Legal - parked for longer than permitted free car park.

Trevor13

Hi All - Great forum and great advice.
Ive received a claim over 5 days ago and already started putting my thoughts down in paragraph 3 of the template. Ive redacted anything that looks identifiable (I think) on the claim form, and need to do the same for my Paragraph 3 before posting, Im looking for any advice.

The story:
after viewing the additional images online ,the vehicle is timed as overstaying by - ill say under 30 minutes.
the car park is a free carpark, no ticket system, no notification of your entry and exit times, 1 hour maximum stay. overstay permitted by advising staff of registration - i think up to 4 hours can be obtained. very hard to read signage - despite what it may say!
First  I knew about the PCN I received what looks like the third letter in the series roughly 6 weeks after the visit! so no initial letter and no opportunity to appeal - straight to - you owe us £170!

I have been to the place in question, snapped a couple of photos and spoke to various staff who have stated to me that they often get this complaint - people saying they never received the first couple of letters!

In the POC (3) im being pursued as the driver - there is more than one named driver on the insurance for this vehicle how do they know who was driving - how can I be sure who was driving on that day? Im also being pursued as the keeper (4) - does POFA apply?

Gr1pr

Please post the issue date from the top right of the claim form below 

Trevor13

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on xx/04/2025", no PCN was received by the Defendant and no opportunity to appeal or challenge arose until a letter was received on xx/06/2025. [the location] staff  have confirmed they do often receive complaints that PCNs fail to materialise and the first time people know of any PCN is well after 28 days - too late to appeal or challenge. 
Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied, the vehicle is recognised and more than one named driver is listed on the insurance documents, it is confirmed that the Defendant is the registered keeper. keeper liability cannot be used as there has been no compliance with POFA. There is an up to 4 hours free of charge stay facility obtained by providing reception with a vehicle number plate which [the location] staff administer (not the visitor). Furthermore, inadequate signage at [the location] is insufficient to form a binding contract with any driver entering or using the car park. Neither Entry nor Exit times are shown or conveyed in any way, it is a free car park and tickets are neither issued nor required. 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 (£100 for the PCN amount and £70 for the administration of an automated letter system), there could be no damages incurred or remedy for tresspass whatsoever in a free carpark. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations. This claim is another example of the systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False and exaggerated fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS.

Thought I may not be able to include the full paragraph 10 but I think its a good point to include the fact in my last sentence.

Trevor13

issued 28th Oct

Gr1pr

Paragraph 3 needs the newer Paragraph 3 that is about the word Contravention,  not Issued,  they dropped the word ISSUED over 6 months ago,  fact check your proposed draft against the particulars in your POC,  don't just blindly copy and paste 

As for Pofa2012,  UKPC usually comply with Pofa2012,  so some of your rebuttal may be incorrect,  check your NTK PCN letter if you have it 

Facts, not assumptions,  in your contributions to your defence 

Complete the AOS online on MCOL ASAP if not already done 

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 28/10/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 02/11/25 and before 16/11/25 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 01/12/25

James_Poisson

"In the POC (3) im being pursued as the driver -"

No you are not read the POC again.

patient_dream

 Just another MISLEADING court claim from DCBL ?
DCBL love to claim Debt Recovery at £70 but when it comes to court they call it DAMAGES.
Rubbish to the extreme and they are misleading the Judge

8% interest, who gets 8% interest nowadays. Most judges will not allow this and Judges are aware that the FAKE £70, they will not allow this either,

The FAKE is called the OSNER/BPA SCAM

Trevor13

Ok. lots of reading and lots of thinking has been done! the story so far..Ive managed to contact a site manager who has tried to intervene with the Parking Co. I think the building manager agrees that this shouldnt have got this far! the PC has offered to accept £100 to discontinue. There have often been problems with reception sometimes refusing to key in registrations due to miscommunication on who can or cannot use the visitor parking. I have a recent example of a colleague who attended less than a month ago and reception didnt enter the reg - he recently received his NTK (I never received one!!!).

anyway - I could use help on the wording for my last paragraph/sentence.

my updated defence is:

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 xx/xx/2025, as

alleged. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied, no Notice to Keeper was received by the defendant and no opportunity to appeal or challenge arose. 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.

3.1 With regards to the POC Neither Entry nor Exit times are shown or conveyed in any way, it is a free car park and tickets are neither issued nor required. the defendant was called to this site on legitimate business, reception is provided with a registration number. Evidence of reception not keying in vehicle registrations can be provided as a witness statement.
Annex F.3 para G of BPAs own code of practice (feb 202) allows for an appeal to be reduced to £20 for 14 days where the vehicle would have been permitted to park at the location, but the driver failed to enter their registration into a terminal/device as specified in the terms & conditions. If the defendant had a chance to appeal this would have been included!

Coupon-mad

Change this:

it is a free car park and tickets are neither issued nor required. the defendant was called to this site on legitimate business, reception is provided with a registration number. Evidence of reception not keying in vehicle registrations can be provided as a witness statement. 

to this:

It is a free car park and the defendant was at this site on legitimate business. The site reception was provided with the vehicle registration number by the defendant but the reception staff failed to record it with the Claimant. This is common and has happened to others at this site; evidence of reception not keying in vehicle registrations will be provided at witness statement stage. The defendant did everything required of them and no conduct of the defendant was a breach of a relevant obligation.


and remove this, which isn't needed:

"Annex F.3 para G of BPAs own code of practice (feb 202) allows for an appeal to be reduced to £20 for 14 days where the vehicle would have been permitted to park at the location, but the driver failed to enter their registration into a terminal/device as specified in the terms & conditions. If the defendant had a chance to appeal this would have been included!"

Trevor13

just a quick question Im guessing I should add  'and driver'. - at the end of paragraph 2 in my case?

and an update. Management have tried to intervene again with the parking Co and they said the claim is dropped with DCBL but will start up again if £100 is not paid promptly. Mcol looks to me like the claim is still ongoing so i will defo upload my defence, ill maybe give it till early next week, or is sooner better than later?