DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 122239--------------------------------------------------
National Parking Control (NPC) Parking PCN DCBL Ltd - No
Permit Ambury Road South, PE29 3EH
DIR By: londondriver
Date: June 18, 2026, 11:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, thanks in advance to any help provided!
Situation:
- On the 30th December 2025, the driver parked off of Ambury
Road South, PE29 3EH, and did not realise it was private
parking.
- The car they were driving was borrowed for a short while from
a family member.
- The family member received the PCN letter in the post on the
21st of January for a £60 charge, and gave it to the driver. The
PCN letter said it was posted on the 8th Jan 2026, but the
letter did not arrive until Wednesday 21st January. According to
the terms set out in their notice, the date of the notice is
deemed to be the second working day after posting so the 12th
of January - and based on that date, the 14-day discounted
payment window should have expired on the 26th January. However,
when the driver attempted to make payment on the 24th January,
only the full £100 amount was offered.
- The PCN pictured the private parking sign, which the driver
had missed.
- The driver appealed the PCN citing 1) Late
Delivery/Unreasonable Notice Window 2) Failure to Provide
Practical Opportunity to Pay Discounted Rate 3) Presumption of
Delivery / Burden of Proof, and asked for the PCN to be
cancelled all-together.
- The driver then forgot about the appeal due to life things
happening (family grief, losing their job, not yet getting a new
job etc.). Not an excuse, but just additional context.
- A few days ago, the driver received a letter from DCBL Ltd
dated the 4th June 2026 regarding a 'final notice of tended
legal action' for £170. They had received no prior letters from
them.
- The driver contacted NPC and they resent an appeal outcome
letter (which was rejected) dated 23rd February 2026. They said
this was emailed to the driver, but they cannot find it in their
emails, so assume that it must have gone into their spam folder
and was missed before it was deleted after 30 days.
Notices Received:
- Here is the original PCN received back in January 2026
(
HTML https://ibb.co/r2mTHcgX).
- The driver doesn't have a copy of the exact appeal letter
written, but it's something along the lines of this
(
HTML https://ibb.co/Z62jWGHw).
These attachments where provided
alongside the appeal (
HTML https://ibb.co/qL6fFwwQ).
- This email was sent from NCP when the driver requested the
appeal outcome letter in June 2026 (
HTML https://ibb.co/1Y81KVxz).
- Here was the appeal outcome letter that was emailed to the
driver in February 2026, but they cannot locate it
(
HTML https://ibb.co/5WJx9ZrX).
- Letter from DCBL dated 4th June (
HTML https://ibb.co/4ZfCrWpq).
Questions
1. Should the driver send a Subject Access Request to NPC to
obtain everything they have around the fine, including the exact
appeal letter?
2. Does the driver ignore all the letters from DCBL Ltd, until a
letter from DCL Legal arrives?
3. Is there enough grounds to follow it through to court if
needed?
#Post#: 122257--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Control (NPC) Parking PCN DCBL Ltd - No
Permit Ambury Road South, PE29 3EH
DIR By: Sander333
Date: June 18, 2026, 1:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Unless my eyesight has deteriorated overnight. I cannot read
original PCN or reminder. The PCN is not a fine but an invoice.
It looks as if in all intense and purpose you were prepared to
pay the reduced payment but was thwarted. They will rely on the
Interpretation Act in this case. I assume you did not appeal to
IAS. If you feel you need to challenge the signs please post
them. Unless you want to pay what DCBL require then ignore until
you get a LOC this will lead to mediation and you can try to
offer payment reduced at this point. You can also alternatively
have your day in court.
#Post#: 122259--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Control (NPC) Parking PCN DCBL Ltd - No
Permit Ambury Road South, PE29 3EH
DIR By: Sander333
Date: June 18, 2026, 1:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have managed to clear the resolution and the PCN makes no
mention of period of parking observation time is NA. You can use
this in due course but as said signs at the site and their
location would be advantageous.
#Post#: 122304--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Control (NPC) Parking PCN DCBL Ltd - No
Permit Ambury Road South, PE29 3EH
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 19, 2026, 2:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The NtK fails to meet the requirement of PoFA Schedule 4
Paragraph 9(2)(e) which specifies that;
THE NOTICE MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the
name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver
#Post#: 122444--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Control (NPC) Parking PCN DCBL Ltd - No
Permit Ambury Road South, PE29 3EH
DIR By: londondriver
Date: June 20, 2026, 5:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=2027]Sander333[/member]
Thank you. Noted that it's an invoice, and not a fine, and also
that they'll rely on The Interpretation Act.
And no, I did not appeal to IAS. I did plan to if the appeal was
rejected, but as I didn't see the rejection and forgot about it
altogether, I missed the window to appeal.
Here is the space the driver parked the car, along with the
signs. Fully aware of the stupidity!
HTML https://ibb.co/WNtbWLBS
+
HTML https://ibb.co/BVKgtfxL.
[member=6750]InterCity125[/member]
Thanks, but reviewing the NtK, it does say the below, so doesn't
that meet the requirement?
"YOU ARE NOW INVITED TO (i) Pay the unpaid Parking Charge; or
(ii) if you were not the driver of the vehicle, notify us ... of
the name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver..."
and later:
"...if after the period of 28 days ... we do not know both the
name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver, we will have the right to recover from you..."
#Post#: 122447--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Control (NPC) Parking PCN DCBL Ltd - No
Permit Ambury Road South, PE29 3EH
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 20, 2026, 5:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The requirement of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) are
different to those of Paragraph 9(2)(e).
9(2)(e) specifies that THE NOTICE MUST STATE that the creditor
does not know both the name of the driver and a current address
for service for the driver AND invite the keeper
9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) then set out the sub-conditions of
the invitation.
Therefore, the condition of 9(2)(e) can only be met if the
relevant sentence conveys both the requirements of the condition
which 9(2)(e) sets out, namely; the mandatory wording
immediately followed by the 'invitation to the keeper'.
9(2)(f) is a 'warning to the keeper'.
9(2)(f) warns the keeper that "IF, after 28 days, the charges
haven't been paid" and "IF, after 28 days the creditor does not
know the name and address of the driver" the keeper will be
liable for the parking charge.
So, can you see that 9(2)(f) does not fulfil the requirement of
9(2)(e) as the wording is preceded by the word "IF" whereas
9(2)(e) specifies that the notice "MUST STATE that the creditor
does not know the name and address" etc.
This has been tested in Court.
The NtK also fails to convey the requirement that the operator
is required to meet "all the applicable conditions under this
Schedule" in order to invoke keeper liability.
#Post#: 122456--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Control (NPC) Parking PCN DCBL Ltd - No
Permit Ambury Road South, PE29 3EH
DIR By: londondriver
Date: June 20, 2026, 6:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=6750]InterCity125[/member]
Oh okay, thank you. I think I'm understanding it now. So because
the NtK literally doesn't say "The creditor does not know the
name and address of the driver" but instead references 'The
driver", they haven't met the requirement of PoFA Schedule 4
Paragraph 9(2)(e)?
Would you be able to direct me in the direction of where I can
find that it's been tested in court? I've done an online search,
but am not coming up with much, I'm afraid.
Also, as part of the appeal, the driver did admit that they were
driving so that the owner of the vehicle stopped receiving
letters. I believe that this was the wrong thing to do, but will
it come back to bite the driver?
#Post#: 122465--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Control (NPC) Parking PCN DCBL Ltd - No
Permit Ambury Road South, PE29 3EH
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 20, 2026, 8:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The driver, being identified, can be pursued under contract law
for six years. PoFA 2012 can be used to transfer liability to
the registered keeper but is unnecessary once the driver has
been identified.
#Post#: 122510--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Control (NPC) Parking PCN DCBL Ltd - No
Permit Ambury Road South, PE29 3EH
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 21, 2026, 1:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I cannot immediately find the case relating to the wording by it
is somewhere on the Parking Prankster website blog.
If you have time then you could search for it.
But, I wouldn't worry too much at this stage - a County Court
Judge will understand the requirements of PoFA once you them out
(if it ever comes to that).
#Post#: 122885--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Control (NPC) Parking PCN DCBL Ltd - No
Permit Ambury Road South, PE29 3EH
DIR By: londondriver
Date: June 24, 2026, 5:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=636]jfollows[/member]
Thanks for your input. Are you suggesting that
[member=6750]InterCity125[/member]'s 'The NtK fails to meet the
requirement of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e)' argument is,
therefore, unusable as the driver has been identified? Please
correct me if I'm wrong.
[member=6750]InterCity125[/member]
Thanks for the direction. I had a look and came across the below
after a few hours down a rabbit hole, but reading these posts
and following on from jfollows point, does the fact that the
driver has been identified in this case affect the requirements
of PoFA argument?
1.
HTML https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/mr-pickups-fun-day-out.html
2.
HTML https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2018/03/court-report-uk-cpm-lose-on-pofa-and.html
And noted re the CCJ.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page