DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 76594--------------------------------------------------
Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: Faiza
Date: June 15, 2025, 2:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HELP NEEDED: Unfair Parking Charges - NPCL Defending My Money
Claim
Location: England
Parking Company: NPCL (National Parking Control Ltd)
Amount Claimed: £680.20
Status: Defendant has filed defense, requesting advice
Background
I've been parking in my private parking spot for 7 years without
any issues. In February 2025, I suddenly received debt recovery
letters from DCBL for 3 parking charge notices issued by NPCL
on:
28th January 2025
30th January 2025
2nd February 2025
Panicking about my credit score (I'm in the middle of a mortgage
application), I paid the charges totaling £680.20 on 5th April
2025.
The Problem
After contacting my property manager, I discovered that NPCL was
never authorized to issue PCNs at our property. The property
manager confirmed they had no contract with NPCL and requested
removal of their unauthorized signage, which NPCL subsequently
removed.
What I've Done
✅ Contacted NPCL via email (10/02/25) - no response
✅ Property manager escalated the issue (26/02/25)
✅ Property manager wrote to collections (07/04/25)
✅ Paid charges under duress (05/04/25)
✅ Filed money claim online
✅ Collected evidence (emails, photos of removed signage)
NPCL's Defense
They've now filed a defense claiming:
My claim is an "abuse of process" and should be struck out
I didn't follow pre-action protocol
They won't issue refunds as the charges were "issued correctly"
They're asking the court to dismiss my claim
Evidence I Have
Email correspondence with property manager confirming NPCL
lacked authorization
Photos showing NPCL signage was removed after complaint
7 years of legitimate parking history at the property
Payment receipts totaling £680.20
Property manager's written confirmation of no contract with NPCL
Questions for the Forum
Is NPCL's "abuse of process" defense likely to succeed? They
seem to be avoiding the main issue that they had no authority to
issue PCNs.
Pre-action protocol - Do I need to worry about this when they
clearly had no right to charge me in the first place?
Next steps - I'll get an allocation questionnaire soon. What
should I focus on in my response?
Chances of success - Given they removed their signage after
being challenged, does this strengthen my case?
Additional evidence - Should I submit a Subject Access Request
to get more information about their processes?
Current Status
Money claim filed and acknowledged
Defendant has 28 days to respond (which they've done)
Waiting for court allocation questionnaire
Total amount seeking: £680.20 + court fees
Any advice from those who've dealt with NPCL or similar
unauthorized parking charges would be greatly appreciated. This
feels like a clear-cut case of a company charging without proper
authority, but their aggressive defense has me second-guessing.
Thanks in advance for any help!
Last updated: June 2025
HTML https://i.ibb.co/0ykC7D8V/Scanned-Document-1.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/0ykC7D8V<br
/>
HTML https://i.ibb.co/ZpfmHQJn/Scanned-Document-2.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/ZpfmHQJn<br
/>
HTML https://i.ibb.co/ymBZMm5G/Scanned-Document-3.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/ymBZMm5G<br
/>
HTML https://i.ibb.co/nM2x3fdZ/Scanned-Document-4.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/nM2x3fdZ<br
/>
HTML https://i.ibb.co/ZRyFhZtH/Scanned-Document-5.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/ZRyFhZtH
#Post#: 76609--------------------------------------------------
Re: Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 15, 2025, 4:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This case is very much backwards from those that we normally
advise on. In general, if someone alleges that you owe them
money, and you dispute this, you refuse to pay and if a claim is
issued, defend the matter. What seems to have happened here is
that rather than refusing to pay, you have paid in full, and are
now seeking to sue the company you paid.
One of the things I'm initially struggling with is the
chronology - I could understand the course of events if you
thought you owed NPCL the money, paid them, and then
subsequently found out from your property manager that they were
not authorised to issue charges. However, in this case, it seems
that you found out that they were not authorised, and that you
therefore didn't owe the money, then paid them nonetheless.
A couple of initial points of clarity:
- We need to see the particulars of your claim. It's impossible
to advise on the quality of their defence without seeing the
claim against which it is defending
- They have alleged that you failed to issue a 'Letter of Claim'
before suing them - is this true? Playing devil's advocate, if
this was the other way round, and a parking company had issued a
court claim without sending a Letter of Claim, we'd be pushing
for a strike out.
#Post#: 76613--------------------------------------------------
Re: Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: Faiza
Date: June 15, 2025, 5:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, DWMB2, for your quick and thoughtful reply. I
appreciate the opportunity to clarify the chronology and address
your questions:
Chronology Clarification
Initial Contact: I received debt recovery letters from DCBL
regarding three PCNs from NPCL for my own allocated parking
space.
Mortgage Pressure: At the time, I was (and still am) in the
process of a mortgage application and was extremely anxious
about any risk to my credit file, so I paid the charges
immediately to avoid escalation.
Discovery of Lack of Authority: Only after paying did I consult
my property manager, who confirmed in writing that NPCL was
never authorised to operate or issue tickets at our development.
The property manager then emailed NPCL to cease enforcement and
remove their signage (which they did).
Action Taken: Once I had this confirmation, I requested a refund
from NPCL, which they refused. I then issued a money claim for
the amount paid.
So, to clarify:
I paid first (due to mortgage/credit concerns), then discovered
NPCL’s lack of authority, and am now seeking to recover the
money.
Particulars of Claim
Here is a summary of my particulars of claim (happy to post the
full text if helpful):
I paid NPCL £680.20 for three PCNs issued for parking in my own
allocated space.
After payment, my property manager confirmed NPCL had no
authority to issue PCNs or operate on our site, and that their
signage was unauthorised and subsequently removed.
I requested a refund from NPCL, which was refused.
I am seeking a refund of the amount paid, on the basis that the
charges were issued unlawfully and under duress (due to
mortgage/credit concerns).
Pre-Action Protocol / Letter of Claim
Letter of Claim: I did not send a formal Letter of Claim before
issuing proceedings. I did, however, email NPCL to request a
refund and explained the situation, but received no response.
I accept that this is a procedural oversight on my part, and I
understand the court may take this into account.
If this was the other way around, I agree we’d be pushing for a
strike out. Is there any way to mitigate this now, or should I
consider offering to stay proceedings to allow for pre-action
correspondence?
Further Evidence
I now have emails from my property manager to NPCL stating they
were trespassing and had no authority, and instructing them to
remove signage and stop issuing tickets.
I also have photos showing the signage was removed after the
complaint.
Questions for the Forum
Given the above, does my claim still have merit despite the lack
of a formal Letter of Claim?
Should I offer to stay proceedings and send a Letter of Claim
now, or continue as is?
Is there anything else I should do to strengthen my case at this
stage?
Thank you again for your help. I’m keen to do things properly
and appreciate any advice on how to proceed given the unusual
sequence of events.
#Post#: 76632--------------------------------------------------
Re: Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: b789
Date: June 16, 2025, 3:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your mortgage concerns were your downfall. These companies rely
on the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of
ignorance and fear. You obviously have no idea of the process
that can lead to a CCJ.
Here is a short lesson on why you were "plucked" from the
gullible tree: (Nothing we advise on here will make anyone get a
CCJ.)
--- Quote ---
> A County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows
a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step
by step:
>
> [indent]1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued
>
> [indent]• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to
Keeper) demanding money.
>
> • This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of
contract.[/indent]
>
> 2. Opportunity to Appeal
>
> [indent]• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.
>
> •If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA
member) or IAS (if IPC member).
>
> • If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands
payment.[/indent]
>
> 3. Debt Collection Letters
>
> [indent]• The parking company might send scary letters or pass
the case to a debt collector.
>
> • Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can
be ignored.
>
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)
>
> [indent]• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or
their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).
>
> • This is a warning that they may start a court case.
>
> • The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.
>
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 5. County Court Claim Issued
>
> [indent]• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a
claim with the County Court.
>
> • The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and
how to respond.
>
> • The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they
acknowledge it).
>
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 6. Court Process
>
> [indent]• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides
if they owe money.
>
> • If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins
by default.
>
> • No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores
the court.[/indent]
>
> 7. Judgment & Payment
>
> [indent]• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient
has 30 days to pay in full.
>
> • If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit
file.
>
> • If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their
credit file for 6 years.[/indent][/indent]
>
> Conclusion
>
> CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:
>
> [indent]• A parking company takes the case to court.
>
> • The person loses or ignores the case.
>
> • The person fails to pay within 30 days.[/indent]
>
> If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on
time), no CCJ happens.
--- End Quote ---
So, even if you'd gone to court and lost the case (unlikely),
you would have been ordered to pay much less than the claim was
for as the added fake £60-£70 per PCN is never allowed and then
you could have paid the judgment amount within 30 days and there
would never be anything on your credit record.
Having said that, your claim still has legal merit despite not
sending a formal Letter of Claim (LoC). The court is more
interested in whether there is a valid cause of action, which
you have. The lack of an LoC might be noted, but it's not fatal.
At worst, it could impact costs, but in small claims that risk
is minimal.
There is no need to stay the proceedings unless the court
directs it. However, in your next submission (such as the
Directions Questionnaire), you can acknowledge the omission and
say you remain open to resolving the matter reasonably. That
shows you are acting fairly.
However, your Particulars of Claim (PoC) are too vague and don’t
frame a clear cause of action in legal terms. That makes it easy
for NPCL to deflect or avoid addressing the real issue. You say
that what you have shown us is a 'summary'. If you want proper
advice, stop summarising and give us all the detail we need to
be able to give the necessary advice.
Your current PoC is, bluntly, insufficient. It lacks a clear
pleaded cause of action — there's no mention of unjust
enrichment, no framing of payment under mistake or duress in
legal terms, and no challenge to NPCL’s standing to issue the
charges. That gives the defendant room to dodge the key issues.
It’s too late to introduce new causes of action at the Witness
Statement (WS) stage. The pleadings frame the issues, and if a
point wasn’t pleaded, the court generally won’t entertain new
arguments raised later unless both parties consent or the court
allows an amendment (which is rare and unlikely on small
claims).
If they submit a detailed WS that goes beyond what they pleaded
in their defence — for example, asserting landowner authority or
trying to rely on contract formation with the driver — you could
potentially respond to those points in your own WS, even if they
weren’t in your original PoC. But that’s a narrow window and no
guarantee.
Given the weak PoC and the fact that the claim has already been
issued, here is my advice on what you should do next:
[indent]1. Wait for NPCL's witness statement. If they include
anything beyond what they pleaded in their defence, such as
claiming they had authority from the landowner or relying on
signs as forming a contract, you can respond to that in your own
witness statement. You can't raise brand new causes of action,
but you can rebut anything they introduce.
2. Prepare your own witness statement carefully. Stick to the
facts that fall within your original claim. Explain clearly that
you paid the charges due to genuine financial pressure during a
mortgage application. Make it clear that the payment was not
made voluntarily or with full knowledge, and that you only
discovered afterwards that NPCL had no right to issue the
charges. Include the property manager’s confirmation that NPCL
was not authorised, and evidence that signage was removed.
3. In your witness statement, state that you do not believe NPCL
had any lawful authority to operate at the site, and that you
require them to provide strict proof of such authority. You are
entitled to make this challenge even if the PoC was poorly
worded, as long as it ties to your claim that the charges were
not lawfully issued.
4. Make sure your N180 Directions Questionnaire (DQ), if not
already submitted, is professional and concise. Choose small
claims track, select your local court. You can add a short
comment to say that you paid the charges under financial
pressure and NPCL later refused a refund after it was confirmed
they had no authority to issue the PCNs.
5. If NPCL's witness statement goes far beyond their defence and
gives you a clear opening, you could consider applying to amend
your PoC. But this is only worth doing if it would make a
meaningful difference and the court is likely to allow it. The
fee is £313, and the court has discretion to refuse it. So,
risky.
6. Get a signed and dated statement from your property manager
confirming that NPCL was never authorised, the signage was not
approved, and it was removed after complaints. This is vital
evidence to show NPCL was acting without consent and had no
right to demand or keep your money.[/indent]
Your best option now is to use the WS to build your case within
the limits of what you originally pleaded, and to exploit
anything NPCL adds in their own evidence. Once you have their
witness statement, it will be clearer how best to respond.
#Post#: 76650--------------------------------------------------
Re: Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: Faiza
Date: June 16, 2025, 5:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you [member=26]b789[/member].
Thanks to everyone who has helped so far. I’ve now received the
N180 Directions Questionnaire and am preparing to fill it out as
advised (small claims track, local court, concise summary).
As requested, here is the exact text of my Particulars of Claim
as submitted via MoneyClaim Online, quoted for clarity:
"Claimant
Miss Faiza Ashraf
[REDACTED]
First Defendant
National Parking Control Group Ltd
The Pinnacle,
Station Way,
Crawley
RH10 1JH
Particulars of Claim
Subject: Request for Refund – Incorrectly Issued PCN
(8694981/8727046/8757184)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally request a refund for PCN
(8694981/8727046/8757184), which I paid on 05/04/2025 &
15/04/2025 under protest/before I had a chance to challenge it
properly. I believe the penalty was issued in error for the
following reason:
wrong signage applied
I have attached the relevant evidence including 1 photos,
receipts, permit. I understand paying the fine typically closes
the case, but I hope you will consider a discretionary refund
based on the evidence provided.
I would appreciate your review of this matter.
sincerely, Faiza Ashraf,
[REDACTED]
I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars
within 14 days after service of this form.
Details of claim
£680.00
£70.00
£750.00
Signed
Faiza Ashraf"
Current Status
N180 Directions Questionnaire received, will fill in as advised
(small claims, local court, concise summary of financial duress
and lack of NPCL authority).
Evidence update: I now have a draft of a formal statement from
my property manager confirming NPCL had no authority, signage
was never approved, and was removed after complaints.
Supporting documents ready: Emails, photos, receipts, and
property manager’s statement.
Questions for the Forum
Does my PoC above cover the key points, or should I clarify
anything further in my witness statement?
Any specific wording for the N180 comments box to clearly
highlight the financial pressure and subsequent discovery of
NPCL’s lack of authority?
Should my property manager’s statement be in formal witness
statement format, or is a signed letter sufficient for small
claims?
Any other advice for this stage, given the sequence of events
and evidence I now have?
Thank you all again—your input has been invaluable.
I’ll update once the N180 is submitted and the property
manager’s statement is finalized.
#Post#: 76659--------------------------------------------------
Re: Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: b789
Date: June 16, 2025, 6:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No one needs to see your personal details, such as your name and
address!!!
Did you submit further PoC within 14 days of issuing the claim
as you stated in your PoC?
Those PoC are unfortunately a mess and don't come close to
meeting the required standard under CPR 16.4. It reads more like
an informal refund request than a legal pleading.
Here's a blunt assessment:
[indent]• No cause of action is pleaded. There's no mention of
unjust enrichment, duress, mistake, trespass, or breach of any
legal principle.
• The reference to “wrong signage applied” is vague and gives no
detail about why the charges were invalid.
• The line about providing further particulars within 14 days is
meaningless unless those particulars were actually served. If
not, the court will just go by what was filed here.
• The structure is informal and doesn't set out any legal basis
for the claim, so the defendant can say there’s no case to
answer beyond a customer complaint that was already considered
and rejected.
• Because this was submitted through MCOL (which limits space),
it's always best to file proper separate particulars within 14
days. If that wasn’t done, the claimant is stuck with what’s
above.[/indent]
So, for now, treat the claim as weakly pleaded but not dead. If
the defendant engages too heavily in their own WS and brings up
new arguments (like signage, landowner authority, contract
terms), that can open the door for a stronger reply in your WS.
In your WS, do not try to add new causes of action like unjust
enrichment or duress formally, since they weren’t pleaded. But
the WS can still explain the circumstances, such as the pressure
of a mortgage application, that the payment was made quickly
without proper investigation, and that it was only after the
fact that NPCL’s lack of authority came to light.
Include the managing agent’s statement and photographic evidence
in the exhibits. Say clearly that the signs were removed after
complaint, and that the property manager confirmed NPCL was
never authorised. The WS should be factual and focused on
explaining why the money should be returned, even if the claim
doesn’t rely on formal legal terms.
If the court picks up on the poor PoC, the judge may still hear
the case if the defendant’s evidence has responded to the
issues. But if NPCL argues that the claim discloses no legal
basis, the judge might strike it out or dismiss it unless
persuaded that the underlying injustice deserves a hearing.
In short, the PoC are bad, but the witness statement can still
try to rescue the claim if the defendant opens the door. Once
NPCL’s WS is in, we can see how much space that gives for a
proper reply.
#Post#: 76673--------------------------------------------------
Re: Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: Faiza
Date: June 16, 2025, 6:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your honest feedback, b789.
To confirm:
I did not submit further particulars within 14 days, so what you
see in the attached screenshot is all that was filed.
I understand now that my PoC is weak and informal, and doesn’t
set out a clear legal cause of action.
Chronology (for context):
As soon as the PCNs arrived, I contacted my property manager,
who emailed NPCL and DCBL confirming NPCL had no authority.
When the matter escalated to debt collection, I was advised to
deal with NPCL/DCBL directly, and ultimately paid under
financial pressure.
After payment, my property manager confirmed in writing that
NPCL was never authorised and their signage was removed.
Next steps:
I’ll focus my witness statement on the facts and include all
supporting evidence (including redacted emails).
I won’t try to introduce new legal arguments, but will explain
why the money should be returned.
I’ll wait to see NPCL’s WS and respond accordingly.
Quick questions:
For small claims, is a signed letter from my property manager
sufficient, or should it be in formal witness statement format?
If NPCL’s WS opens up new issues, how much can I address given
my weak PoC?
Thanks again for your guidance
#Post#: 76679--------------------------------------------------
Re: Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: b789
Date: June 16, 2025, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can simply include the letter from the management as
evidence with your own WS. Have you submitted an N180 DQ yet?
Whilst you should start preparing your own WS, do not submit
anything until advised here. The case will be allocated to the
small claims track and then allocated to your local county
court. Once that happens, then a judge will issue orders which
will include deadlines for both parties to submit their bundles
(WS).
There is a danger that the defendant could apply for a summary
judgment or strike out before the case is allocated to track and
be successful, based on your poorly pleaded PoC.
Have you received a copy of the defendants defence yet? The CNCB
is supposed to send a copy to you, otherwise, you do not know
how they intend to challenge your claim.
#Post#: 76699--------------------------------------------------
Re: Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 16, 2025, 7:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Have you received a copy of the defendants defence yet?
>
--- End Quote ---
The opening post contains a copy
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> There is a danger that the defendant could apply for a summary
judgment or strike out before the case is allocated to track and
be successful, based on your poorly pleaded PoC.
--- End Quote ---
I think that's one of the bigger risks here - had this been the
opposite way round, we'd probably be arguing many of the same
points as NPCL are arguing here.
#Post#: 76730--------------------------------------------------
Re: Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: Faiza
Date: June 16, 2025, 11:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again, questionnaire deadline is 20 June and I am
submitting it by end of tomorrow.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page