DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 66573--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL: Plenty of threatening letters, but where's the PCN
from Britania PG Ltd?
DIR By: b789
Date: April 11, 2025, 2:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Now you’re overthinking it. You’ve deleted the N1SDT Claim Form
so I can’t go back and check. However, I am sure the sum claimed
is more than the amount on the contractual signage.
What on earth do you mean “free car park”. If it’s free, why are
you now defending a claim for more than £0?
Edit the defence at your won risk.
#Post#: 66600--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL: Plenty of threatening letters, but where's the PCN
from Britania PG Ltd?
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: April 11, 2025, 5:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Shoot. Ok, I'll put it back up, along with the threatening
letters.
By 'free', I mean there is no actual charge for using it.
According to the terms of use displayed on the signage and cited
in the PoC, the driver is merely required to register his
registration # at the reception.
3(f) challenges the Claimant to separate the charge for parking
from the damages that are being claimed, does it not? I didn't
see how that was relevant in this instance, since there is no
charge for parking in this car park. It's all 'damages'.
Now, if you're telling me that 3(f) should still be included in
my 'non-defence', fine. I don't have a problem with that. I'm
just trying to understand why.
I'll post up docs again shortly.
Here they are again:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/Vqcp2KA
--- Quote ---
> However, I am sure the sum claimed is more than the amount on
the contractual signage.
--- End Quote ---
Of course it is. If you don't cough up £100 [or whatever
discounted amount they want within a certain period], then costs
escalate. Isn't that how it works - for them at least?
#Post#: 66610--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL: Plenty of threatening letters, but where's the PCN
from Britania PG Ltd?
DIR By: b789
Date: April 11, 2025, 6:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The contractual signs and the NtK all state that the charge for
breach of contract is £100. The claim form states that the claim
is for £183.36 plus fixed costs.
Assuming that £13.36 is statutory interest at 8%/annum, can you
calculate with precision from what date they have applied that
interest? Have they applied it to the principal charge or also
to the "damages"? If so, what are the "damages"? Are they for
breach of contract or are they the so called "debt recovery
fees"? If they are debt recovery fees, is the interest applied
to the VAT element?
Is the Additional £70 "damages" or "debt recovery fees"? Do you
think that they actually paid a penny to anyone for "debt
recovery"? It is well known that these debt recovery agents
offer their services on a now win, no fee basis. We have
evidence of this.
The DHLUC in an impact statement when reviewing the upcoming
Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 revealed that the
average cost to a private parking company for debt recovery was
£8.32 per claim, not per PCN. In the Beavis case, the Supreme
Court judges held that the initial charge should cover the
normal cost of doing business, which for mere mortals includes
debt recovery.
Do you see where I am heading with this?
#Post#: 67201--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL: Plenty of threatening letters, but where's the PCN
from Britania PG Ltd?
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: April 15, 2025, 7:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, I assume you mean that:
1. They might be claiming a lot more than they're entitled to at
law, and
2. Their PoC lacks the requisite detail to make it compliant
with CPR. Therefore, non-enforceable.
I dunno; just guessing. Still not clear what any of that has to
do with my query re. 3(f). But to save us going around in
circles, I'll leave 3(f) in my defence regardless of relevance -
assuming that is what you are advising.
#Post#: 67249--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL: Plenty of threatening letters, but where's the PCN
from Britania PG Ltd?
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: April 15, 2025, 11:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
3(f) challenges the Claimant to separate the charge for parking
from the damages that are being claimed, does it not? I didn't
see how that was relevant in this instance, since there is no
charge for parking in this car park. It's all 'damages'.
You misunderstand.
These are the terms used:
'Tariff' - the amount payable by the driver for using the land,
subject to the Ts and Cs which in their entirety form the
contract. In this case £0.
'Parking charge': a sum, in the nature of a fee or charge, for
breaching the contract. In this case the sum of £100 for
breaching the condition that the driver was required to register
their VRM 'at the kiosk at reception upon arrival'.
As a point of accuracy, the PoC state that £170 is owed by the
driver or, in the alternative, the keeper. However, PoFA limits
the amount which may be recovered from the keeper in the
following way: '..the creditor will (if all the applicable
conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to
recover from the keeper so much of that amount [of the unpaid
parking charge] as remains unpaid;
PoFA has nothing to do with how the driver may be pursued and I
wouldn't know whether interest or debt recovery costs or
whatever may be legitimately recovered in court.
But IMO as regards the keeper the sum is limited to 'that amount
of the parking charges[specified in the Notice to Keeper] as
remain unpaid'.
So IMO even the question of whether 'charges' or 'damages' is
not one which can be asked in the singular because it applies
differently to the driver and keeper.
#Post#: 78645--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL: Plenty of threatening letters, but where's the PCN
from Britania PG Ltd?
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: June 28, 2025, 8:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Would appreciate some help with my answer to Q. D1 of form N180,
which asks if I think the case can be determined without a
hearing.
I have answered NO to the question, and given this as the
reason:
--- Quote ---
> There are points of fact that are in dispute, and which will
need the judge to hear directly from me. In particular, the
entire premise of the claim is challenged on the grounds that it
fails to comply with, inter alia, CPR 16.4.
--- End Quote ---
Is that an adequate/suitable reply?
Thanks.
#Post#: 78648--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL: Plenty of threatening letters, but where's the PCN
from Britania PG Ltd?
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 28, 2025, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The normal words proposed, which you’ll find quickly if you
search here, are
--- Quote ---
> I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a
hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or
incorrect evidence or assertions.
> Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking
case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on
papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage,
especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to
have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants
template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events
in question..
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 78650--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL: Plenty of threatening letters, but where's the PCN
from Britania PG Ltd?
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: June 28, 2025, 9:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks mate.
#Post#: 97584--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL: Plenty of threatening letters, but where's the PCN
from Britania PG Ltd?
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: November 10, 2025, 10:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hmm ......... well, yes. I had a gut feeling I could smell the
stench of desperation emanating from their HQ.
After a couple of billets-doux fromn DCBL offering to reduce
their claim from £300-odd to £150, then finally to £60 (to which
I did not reply, btw), I have just received this little gem from
their agent:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx,
>
> We act for the Claimant in the above matter.
>
> Our client has instructed us to discontinue Court proceedings
and close our file. Therefore, please find enclosed the
Claimant’s N279 Notice of Discontinuance for your records.
>
> The attached has also been filed with the Court.
>
> We will now proceed to close our file accordingly.
>
>
> Kind Regards,
> Madeleine McCusker
>
> Case Manager
> DCB Legal Ltd
> Tel: 0203 434 0433 | DX 23457 Runcorn
--- End Quote ---
Can't thank you guys enough.
#Post#: 97704--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL: Plenty of threatening letters, but where's the PCN
from Britania PG Ltd?
DIR By: b789
Date: November 11, 2025, 10:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As predicted. Please show us the N279 NoD with the signature and
position unredacted.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page