DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 63799--------------------------------------------------
DCBLegal - Unpaid parking charge £170 - LoC - HM Courts &
Tribunal
DIR By: Anon777
Date: March 23, 2025, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I'm looking for advice.
I'll talk in third person to protect any liability.
The registered keeper (RK) of a vehicle has received a claim
form from HM Courts and DCBLegal are the claimant for an unpaid
parking charge of £170 for an alleged parking contravention for
parking longer than the maximum time permitted. Their client is
Britannia Parking Ltd (BPL).
The date of the claim to the court was 11/03/2025 and the
registered keeper has, as of today, 23/03/2025, submitted their
AoS.
A few particulars that may be of relevance in my request for
advice here, is that:
1. The RK of said vehicle wasn't living at said vehicle’s
registered address when the NTK was issued to the RK. The RK can
evidence this in the form of:
- A loan agreement in digital format between the RK and tenant
who was living at the vehicle’s registered address which
was signed by the tenant prior to when the alleged parking
contravention occurred. The loan agreement shows that the
addresses of the tenant and vehicle's registered addresses match
- An email chain forwarded to the RK from the tenant showing how
delays in legal proceedings of the tenant’s house sale
chain ended up delaying the departure of their tenant from the
vehicle's registered address by several months covering the
dates the first PCN was issued including dates of follow up
correspondence regarding non-payment of the PCN
- Private conversation history dated 29/07/2024 between the RK
and the tenant showing that the tenant had taken steps to
purchase a house, RK understood that they would soon come to
have their house back as the tenant's house purchase would only
take 4-8 weeks, 8 weeks taking them to 23/09/2024. However the
completion was delayed into 2025 as per above
For these reasons, correspondence from DCBLegal, DCBL and
Britannia Parking Ltd was missed by the RK.
I know the RK of the vehicle is required to keep the DVLA
updated for address changes, however as noted in
HTML https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-changed-address,
it is quoted by
the DVLA that “You do not need to tell us if you move
temporarily (for example you’re living away at university)
if we can still contact you at your permanent address.”.
As the RK believed their address change was temporary, there was
no need for the RK to inform the DVLA of their address change.
NTKs were sent to the RK however it was of no fault of the RK
that they didn’t receive them.
2. The photographic evidence on the NTK shows digitally altered
images in the form of black boxes covering the driver’s
identity and cropping of a higher resolution image of the
vehicle’s number plate so it fits within the frame of the
image. I think this breaches BPA’s CoP 21.5(a): “All
photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and
must not be retouched or digitally altered.”.
3. The NTK shows the entry and exit times but does not show the
duration the vehicle parked for, nor showing it actually parked
anywhere.
4. In DCBLegal’s particulars of claim it says:
- DCBLegal sent the PCN on the same day as when the alleged
parking contravention occurred 21/08/2024, however on the NTK
BPL issued, BPL say the PCN was issued on 04/09/2024
- The PoC doesn't mention when the parking contravention
occurred or any of the contract terms the driver agreed to
5. There is no option to pay for any length of stay at this car
park.
The LoC was sent to the RK on 06/02/2025 and the RK responded to
info@decblegal.co.uk on 6 March 2025, within the 30-day time
limit allowed for replying to an LoC. In the email the RK
mentioned that they weren’t at the address of the
registered vehicle when DCBLegal and their client sent
correspondence to the RK and asked for DCBLegal to go back to
their client to start the process again (no driver liability
admitted). The RK has so far not received a human response to
their email however a claim has clearly been pursued in the
courts against the RK.
Hopefully that’s enough information for someone to help
the RK with a list of arguments for their defence which, 28 days
from 11/03/2025, would allow them until 08/04/2025 to do.
Happy to provide pictures of NTK and HM courts claim against RK
to any trusted member of the forum. Hopefully everyone can
understand reasons for not doing so just yet.
Would greatly appreciate some advice.
Thanks
#Post#: 63804--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBLegal - Unpaid parking charge £170 - LoC - HM Courts
& Tribunal
DIR By: b789
Date: March 23, 2025, 9:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
DCB Legal is NOT the Claimant. It is one of the Britannia group
of companies that is the Claimant. Is it Britannia Parking
Services Ltd, Britannia Parking Group Ltd or Britannia Parking
Ltd?
Please don't paraphrase the Particulars of Claim (PoC). We need
to see precisely the wording used.
It is best that you simply show the N1SDT Claim Form and just
redact your personal info, the claim number and the MCOL
password.
How did you submit the AoS? through MCOL, email or post?
With an issue date of 11th March, you have until 4pm on Monday
31st March to submit your defence. As you have submitted an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) and they receive it before
then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 14th April to
submit your defence.
Once you have clarified who the Claimant is and shown us the
PoC, we can suggest a suitable defence.
One thing is for sure, any claim issued by DCB Legal will be
discontinued before any hearing fee has to be paid as long as it
is defended.
#Post#: 63819--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBLegal - Unpaid parking charge £170 - LoC - HM Courts
& Tribunal
DIR By: Anon777
Date: March 23, 2025, 11:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your reply b789.
You're right, it is just easier for me to show the PoC:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/pcn-u9XyQLN
RK submitted AoS through MCOL.
NTK shows it was from 'Britannia Parking'. The footer of NTK
says "Britannia Parking is a Registered Trading Name of
Britannia Parking Group Limited and any of its wholly owned
subsidiaries".
If you want to see NTK, will upload also.
#Post#: 63825--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBLegal - Unpaid parking charge £170 - LoC - HM Courts
& Tribunal
DIR By: b789
Date: March 23, 2025, 11:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's OK. The Claim Form show that the Claimant is Britannia
Parking Group Ltd.
As you've submitted your AOS, you now have until 4pm on Monday
14th April to submit your defence.
Here is the defence and link to the draft order that goes with
it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You
sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and
date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.
When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF
attachment and send as an attachment in an email to
claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim
number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the
email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft
order in the matter of Britannia Parking Group Ltd v [your full
name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
--- Quote ---
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
> [right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
>
> [center]BETWEEN:
>
> Britannia Parking Group Ltd
> Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]
> 
Defendant
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEFENCE[/center]
>
> 1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The
Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and
that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not
adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
>
> 2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of
Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR
16.4.
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> [indent](a) The contract referred to is not detailed or
attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
>
> (b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
contracts) which is/are relied on;
>
> (c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons)
why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract
(or contracts)
>
> (d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity
exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the
breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was
parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
>
> (e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;
>
> (f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
>
> (g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without
specificity.[/indent]
>
> 4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft
order approved by a district judge at another court. The court
struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining
that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4.
The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
>
> [indent](i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
>
> (ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was
allegedly in breach of contract;
>
> (iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as
permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
>
> (iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum
claimed, requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than
permitting an amendment.[/indent]
>
> 5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in
this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by
striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with
CPR 16.4.
>
> Statement of truth
>
> I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I
understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought
against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false
statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without
an honest belief in its truth.
>
> Signed:
>
>
> Date:
--- End Quote ---
Draft Order for the defence
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0
#Post#: 63832--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBLegal - Unpaid parking charge £170 - LoC - HM Courts
& Tribunal
DIR By: Anon777
Date: March 23, 2025, 12:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have everything ready to send but noticed there is no
reference to the 'other' case in the template or draft you
kindly provided. Is it necessary that the other case to which I
refer is not actually referenced?
I ask because as per your response 3 days ago in
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/dcb-legalparkingeye-claim-form-received/<br
/>the cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024
[K0DP5J30] are referenced and worded slightly different.
Once confirmed, I'll re-bundle everything and send off.
Thanks again.
#Post#: 63842--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBLegal - Unpaid parking charge £170 - LoC - HM Courts
& Tribunal
DIR By: b789
Date: March 23, 2025, 12:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No. The "other" cases referred to are used in a claim where CPR
16.4(1)(a) has not been complied with. In your case, CPR
16.4(1)(a) has partially but not adequately been complied with.
The PoC in this case give a "reason" which partially complies
with CPR 16.4(1)(a) but not adequately so. If you look at the
"reason" in the one you linked to, it just states that it is a
breach of the terms & conditions. That does not comply at all
with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
CPR 16.4(1)(a) states that the PoC MUST include a concise
statement of the facts on which the claimant relies. Simply
stating that the only fact is a breach of the terms and
conditions does not satisfy that requirement, concisely or
otherwise. However, in your case, the reason given is "parked
for longer than the time permitted". This is too concise and
therefore does not adequately state the facts as required.
Either way, the PoC are required to provide all the information
needed to submit a defence. Look at it from this point of
view... assume you had no prior knowledge of the outstanding PCN
and alleged debt. Would you be able to put together enough
information from those PoC to produce a valid defence? If the
answer is yes, then you can try a different approach.
Is the date that the PCN was issued correct? Remember that a
PCN, unless it is a windscreen Notice to Driver (NtD) cannot be
issued on the same date that the alleged contravention occurred.
Is the "contract' referred to in the PoC detailed? What was the
actual term of the contract that it is alleged that you
breached? What was the actual time that you were permitted to
park there? How was that term breached?
CPR PD 16(7.5) states:
--- Quote ---
> 7.5 Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the
particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and
state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct
were done.
--- End Quote ---
Do the PoC adequately specify the conduct relied on, by whom and
when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done? No
they don't.
Do the PoC state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of
the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which
is/are relied on? No they don't.
Do the PoC state with sufficient particularity exactly
where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach
occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked
before the parking charge was allegedly incurred? No they don't.
Do the PoC state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated,
including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or
other charges? For example, from what date has any statutory
interest been calculated? It cannot be calculated from the issue
date of the PCN.
Do the PoC state how much of the sum claimed is the original
charge and how much is damages or debt recovery? No they don't.
Are they suing you as the driver or as the Keeper? Without
specifying one, or the other and if necessary both, they have
not provided enough specificity. They can only sue you as one or
the other and if so, they must specify which and why. They
haven't
They could have simply stated in the PoC that further more
detailed PoC will follow within 14 days but they have chosen not
to do this.
The claim is deficient and should be struck out. If it isn't,
then they will discontinue anyway as that is the M.O. of DCB
Legal claims. I have no doubt about that.
#Post#: 63859--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBLegal - Unpaid parking charge £170 - LoC - HM Courts
& Tribunal
DIR By: Anon777
Date: March 23, 2025, 1:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
All understood and defence has been submitted for RK just now.
--- Quote ---
> Is the date that the PCN was issued correct? Remember that a
PCN, unless it is a windscreen Notice to Driver (NtD) cannot be
issued on the same date that the alleged contravention occurred.
--- End Quote ---
The NTK says PCN was issued on 04/09/2024 while the PoC says PCN
was issued on 21/08/2024 to the contrary. NTK shows the alleged
contravention occurred on 21/08/2024.
So as per PoC, the PCN was issued on the same day as alleged
contravention. To confirm, it was an NtK (not NtD).
For myself and any others who may be reading or using a search
engine scraping these forums, can you kindly mention which
sections/paragraphs of law/practice state that the NtK can't be
issued on the same day as the PCN? I'm no expert but I've had a
look and it appears to be POFA 2012 schedule 4 P9(5)?
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/paragraph/9
--- Quote ---
> The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is
the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which
the specified period of parking ended.
--- End Quote ---
Thanks in advance
We'll leave it at that for now. Will update when RK hears
something back.
#Post#: 63872--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBLegal - Unpaid parking charge £170 - LoC - HM Courts
& Tribunal
DIR By: b789
Date: March 23, 2025, 3:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It is not practically or procedurally possible under current
DVLA processes for an operator to "issue" a postal Notice to
Keeper (NtK) on the same calendar day as the alleged
contravention, given the steps involved: detecting the
contravention, applying to the DVLA, receiving keeper data, and
then issuing the NtK.
Under the current arrangement, private parking operators must
apply to the DVLA (usually via electronic KADOE system) for the
keeper’s data. The DVLA does not provide real-time data. Even
electronic requests take at least 24–48 hours, typically longer
on weekends or public holidays.
Operators must first capture the vehicle registration, log the
contravention, and then submit the request. The DVLA must then
process and return the keeper details. Therefore, no operator
can lawfully or feasibly obtain the keeper's name and address on
the same day as the alleged contravention.
A postal NtK must include the name and address of the registered
keeper (PoFA Sch. 4, para 9(2)(a)), the date of the alleged
contravention and date of issue of the notice (among other
details). Without the DVLA data, a compliant NtK cannot be
created or issued.
The DVLA KADOE contract requires operators to retain evidence of
the request and its timing, and data access must only be for
specific, logged events. Operators who claim to issue an NtK on
the same day as the contravention would have to prove how they
obtained DVLA data instantly and prove that the NtK was
genuinely issued after receiving that data. They cannot.
The only way for a PCN issue date to be the same date as the
alleged contravention date is if the PCN is issued as a
windscreen Notice to Driver (NtD). There is nothing in PoFA or
any other legislation that mentions the difference between the
"issue" date of a PCN and the alleged contravention date.
You're quite right to highlight Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5) of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) as the relevant
statutory provision, because that is the only part of PoFA that
indirectly addresses the timing of when a postal Notice to
Keeper (NtK) may be issued following a contravention where no
Notice to Driver (NtD) was served. The NtK must be delivered to
the keeper within 14 days of the alleged contravention (not
issued or dated, but delivered).
However, the timing of obtaining the keeper’s data (as governed
by the DVLA's processes and the KADOE contract) makes it
impossible in practice to obtain keeper data and issue a postal
NtK on the same day as the contravention.
Although not part of PoFA, the DVLA’s KADOE contract sets out
that operators must have “reasonable cause” to request keeper
data and data must relate to a specific contravention that has
already occurred, and data requests must be logged and
retrievable for audit purposes.
In DCB Legal issued claims, Sarah Ensall, the "Head of Legal" at
that firm, uses a boilerplate to complete the PoC. She and most
of the other incompetents at that firm of bulk litigators do not
know how to distinguish between the date of the alleged
contravention and the date the PCN was actually "issued".
What the "issue" date in the PoC refers to is actually the date
of the alleged contravention, not the actual "issue" date of the
PCN. The alleged "issue" date in your PoC does not match up with
the "issue" date of what you think is the PCN they are pursuing
so you have even more reason to doubt the PoC are even truthful.
So, to summarise your original question, there is no single line
in PoFA that expressly prohibits a postal NtK being issued on
the same day as a contravention. However, Paragraph 9(2)(a)
requires the notice to include the name and address of the
keeper, which can only be obtained from the DVLA after the
contravention occurs. Paragraph 9(5) sets the 14-day delivery
deadline. Since DVLA data is not provided instantly, it is
functionally impossible to comply with these requirements and
issue a lawful NtK on the same day as the parking event. Any
such NtK would either be backdated or sent without lawful access
to keeper data.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1