DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 76735--------------------------------------------------
Re: Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: b789
Date: June 16, 2025, 11:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate that there is a summary of the operators defence.
However, without seeing the actual defence, it is difficult to
provide more precise advice.
[member=5884]Faiza[/member], can you post, suitably redacted of
your personal information, the defence as submitted by the
defendant? Preferably on Google Drive or even DropBox.
Re-reading the OP, and based on that defence summary, NPCL are
relying entirely on procedural deflection and a bare denial.
What this means in practical terms:
[indent]1. “Abuse of process”
This is hollow. They're trying to suggest the claim is vexatious
or has no valid cause of action. Given how weak the PoC is, this
is their best shot. But unless they apply for strike-out under
CPR 3.4 and succeed before allocation to track, it’s likely to
be left for the judge to decide on the day. Abuse of process is
a high bar to achieve and the court usually won’t strike out a
small claim unless it’s clearly hopeless or completely
incoherent.
2. “Didn’t follow pre-action protocol”
True, but irrelevant to the core issue. The small claims track
is meant to be low-cost and low-formality. If a party skips the
pre-action protocol, the court might raise it during allocation
or costs (even then, small claims costs are limited). It does
not make the claim invalid.
3. “Charges were issued correctly”
This is a standard stock line. It tells you nothing and offers
no proof. If they say this in their witness statement without
exhibiting a valid landowner contract, it weakens their case.
The court will expect them to show they had the right to issue
PCNs at the site. If they don’t, the judge is likely to find
they had no authority and no lawful basis to demand or keep the
money.
4. “Asking the court to dismiss”
That’s routine. Every defence ends with a request for dismissal.
Unless they’ve made a formal application for strike-out, the
claim proceeds to the next stage.[/indent]
This tells you that NPCL are gambling that the court will throw
this out on weak PoC alone. If they don’t apply to strike out
before allocation, and if they overreach in their own WS, the
judge might still listen to the substance. Your job is to
prepare a calm, well-structured witness statement that explains
why the money should be returned. Don’t try to introduce new
legal claims, just explain the timeline, attach the managing
agent’s statement, and rebut any claim of authority they try to
rely on.
There is a greater risk that the defendant applies for dismissal
or summary judgment before allocation—specifically before the
court formally allocates the claim to the small claims track.
Here’s why:
Before allocation
The defendant can apply under CPR 3.4(2)(a) to strike out the
claim as disclosing no reasonable grounds or being an abuse of
process. They can also apply under CPR 24 for summary judgment,
arguing that the claim has no real prospect of success and there
is no compelling reason for a trial. These are both far more
viable before allocation.
At this stage, the claim is not yet protected by the more
informal and cost-limited small claims rules. If an application
is made now and succeeds, the court can:
[indent]• Strike out the claim entirely.
• Possibly award costs against the claimant (application costs
plus hearing fee, typically up to a few hundred
pounds).[/indent]
After allocation to small claims track
Once the case is allocated to the small claims track, the rules
change. Summary judgment and strike-out are still technically
possible but are rare. Judges take a much more relaxed approach
to pleadings on small claims and tend to focus on resolving the
dispute at a hearing. Procedural applications are discouraged
unless there’s something flagrantly wrong.
That’s why defendants sometimes try to apply early—before
allocation—to head off weak claims that would otherwise proceed
on a level playing field at a hearing.
So, the biggest risk is now, before allocation. If NPCL are
smart, they may apply for strike-out or summary judgment while
your PoC is still on shaky ground. If they don’t do it soon,
that window closes once the court issues allocation directions
and a hearing is listed.
If such an application comes, you’ll need to file a short but
firm response explaining:
[indent]• The claim relates to payment made under pressure.
• You only discovered after the fact that NPCL lacked authority.
• The defendant has not shown any evidence of authorisation.
• The matter deserves a proper hearing and is not suitable for
disposal on papers.[/indent]
As you have received a copy of the defence from the CNBC, you
can complete your N180 DQ (download it, don't use the paper
form). Whilst there is no obligation to reply to the defence, a
brief covering letter, as follows, is acceptable to send to the
court and to CC in the defendant together with your copy of your
completed N180DQ:
--- Quote ---
> Claim Number: [insert claim number]
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I confirm that I have received your defence. I intend to
proceed with the claim.
>
> Please find enclosed a copy of my completed Directions
Questionnaire (Form N180).
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Claimant’s full name]
--- End Quote ---
This should be emailed to the CNBC at DQ.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and
also to NPCL and you must also CC in yourself. Attach to it a
PDF copy of your N180 DQ. It shows the court that you’ve read
the defence and are not withdrawing, without inviting
unnecessary procedural complexity.
If you are unsure about the N180, follow this advice:
--- Quote ---
> Instructions for Completing the N180 Directions Questionnaire
– Claimant (Suing NPCL)
>
> 1. Download and complete the form using this official link:
>
>
[indent]
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf[/indent]
>
> 2. Complete the form as follows:
>
> [indent]• Name of the Court: Civil National Business Centre
> • To be completed by: [Your full name]
> • You are the 'Claimant'
> • C1 – Do you agree that the small claims track is the
appropriate track? Tick 'Yes'
> • D1 – Do you agree that this case should be dealt with
without a hearing? Tick 'No'
> • Reason:
>
> [indent]“I wish to question the Defendant about their evidence
face-to-face and to expose any omissions or misleading
assertions. The Defendant is a commercial parking company that
generates template paperwork for a living; deciding the case
solely on the papers would place me, a litigant in person and
the only direct witness, at an unfair disadvantage. An in-person
hearing is required so the court can test the Defendant’s claims
and so I can respond fully.”[/indent]
>
> • D2 – Name of preferred court:
> [indent]Enter your local County Court (use
HTML https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
to
confirm)[/indent]
> • Reason: “This is the Claimant’s local court.”
>
> • F1 – Number of witnesses: Enter '1'.
> • F2 – Experts: Tick 'No'.
> • F3 – Hearing dates to avoid: Fill this in if you know of any
dates you can’t attend.
>
> • Signature: Just type your full name.[/indent]
>
> Save and email the form to dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and also CC
in the defendant or their legal representative, if they're using
one, and also CC in yourself.
>
> The email MUST include the claim number in the subject field:
>
> [indent]Claim No: [insert claim number] – Claimant’s
Directions Questionnaire[/indent]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 76782--------------------------------------------------
Re: Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: Faiza
Date: June 16, 2025, 3:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you b789 for such comprehensive advice. I now understand
the critical timing issues and procedural steps much better.
I'll take these immediate actions:
Complete the N180 exactly as outlined and submit it to
dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk with the suggested covering letter, CCing
NPCL and myself.
I'll upload a properly redacted version of the full defense
document to Google Drive and share the link here for your
review.
I understand the greatest risk is before allocation, and I'll be
prepared to respond if NPCL applies for strike-out or summary
judgment.
To answer your question about the defense document - I only have
what was sent by the CNBC. I'll share this as soon as I can get
it properly redacted.
Regarding my evidence, I'll organize it but won't submit
anything until directed by the court after allocation.
I appreciate your explanation of their defense strategy and how
to counter it. The timeline and explanation of small claims
procedures has been extremely helpful.
Will update once I've submitted the N180 and have the defense
document ready to share.
#Post#: 76784--------------------------------------------------
Re: Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 16, 2025, 4:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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
That's not how this works.
Initially NPCL must issue either Notices to Driver to the
vehicle and then wait at least 28 days before issuing Notices to
Keeper and then wait a further 28 days before 'debt' recovery =
min. 56 days after each event, or straight to the Notice to
Keeper stage.
So, a minimum of 28 days must elapse after incurring any parking
charge before 'debt' recovery. To receive 'debt recovery letters
in February' is simply not possible under legal and Code of
Practice procedures.
What's missing in your account or are you saying that you
received nothing whatsoever from NPCL prior to the, as far as we
know, undated 'debt recovery letters'? If nothing else, show us
one of these letters.
Is your DVLA registered keeper address current?
#Post#: 76788--------------------------------------------------
Re: Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: Faiza
Date: June 16, 2025, 4:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your response.
They did send me parking charge notice at home address.
I contacted property manager who then said, will take care of
it.
Property manager wrote to them saying they were trespassing and
issuing tickets to residents without any authority.
After a while rather than cancelling PCN they forwarded the
cases to debt recovery and property manager wrote to them too
but stating that NPC was trespassing and issuing ticket
illegally.
They never cancel tickets of residents but some paid charges and
some didn't but after some time they must have realised there
sign board was out of their permitted boundary so they removed
the signed from there where they issued charges notices.
And at this stage properly manager adviced to take care
ourselves as they are unable to do anything at recovery stage.
With very little to none information I started money claim and
here I am now.
#Post#: 76800--------------------------------------------------
Re: Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: sparx
Date: June 16, 2025, 6:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Faiza, how did you pay these charges? Debit card, credit card,
or bank transfer?
If others think this is even an avenue you can take, if you paid
by debit or credit card, there are chargeback processes you can
go through to potentially retrieve your money. I'm not overly
hopeful, but as this company misrepresented their position, you
might find the bank rules in your favour
Do others think this "misrepresentation" would actually be valid
for a s75 CCA claim too? Not sure if the parking company would
be classed as a "supplier".
#Post#: 76807--------------------------------------------------
Re: Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: b789
Date: June 17, 2025, 3:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with [member=134]sparxy[/member]. If you paid NPCL using
a debit or credit card, then yes, you should try a chargeback,
depending on the type of card used and how long ago the payment
was made.
If it was a debit card, the chargeback process allows consumers
to ask their bank to reverse a payment where there's evidence of
wrongdoing, error, or lack of service. In this case, you could
argue that the money was paid under pressure for charges that
were later confirmed to be invalid due to NPCL having no
authority to issue them.
To initiate a chargeback on a debit card:
[indent]• Contact the bank that issued the card as soon as
possible, ideally within 120 days of the payment.
• Provide all relevant evidence, such as the property manager’s
confirmation that NPCL was not authorised, a copy of the PCNs,
proof of payment, and any correspondence showing the refund
request was refused.
• The bank will then raise the dispute with NPCL’s acquiring
bank.
• If successful, the funds may be returned. However, the
merchant (NPCL) can dispute it, in which case further evidence
may be needed.[/indent]
If it was a credit card and because the amount paid was over
£100, you also have a legal right under Section 75 of the
Consumer Credit Act 1974. This makes the credit card company
jointly liable with the merchant if there was a
misrepresentation or breach of contract. Since NPCL had no
authority to issue the charges, this qualifies as a
misrepresentation or an unlawful demand.
Section 75 claims:
[indent]• Are made directly with the credit card provider.
• Require supporting documentation (similar to a chargeback).
• Are more robust than chargeback because they are a legal
right.[/indent]
In either case, these routes are separate from the court claim
and could lead to recovery of the money regardless of the court
outcome. They will also put pressure on NPCL if the funds are
reversed. If the court claim later succeeds, you must of course
inform the court and avoid double recovery.
With regards to the post about the timing of debt recovery
letters, the comment about the timeline for issuing NtKs and
debt recovery doesn’t really apply to the stage this case is at
now.
Whether NPCL followed the proper order of notices or not is not
the central issue here. The claimant has already paid the
charges and is now suing to recover the money based on the fact
that NPCL was never authorised to operate at the site. That’s
the actual dispute.
So the question isn’t whether NPCL followed the correct
procedural steps back in January or February, but whether they
had any legal right to demand money in the first place. It
doesn’t really help with the situation the claimant is in now.
#Post#: 76808--------------------------------------------------
Re: Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: b789
Date: June 17, 2025, 3:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: sparxy link ---
>
> Not sure if the parking company would be classed as a
"supplier".
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes, NPCL would be classed as a "supplier" for the purposes of a
chargeback or Section 75 claim.
In both systems:
[indent]• Chargeback looks at whether the merchant or supplier
failed to provide the promised goods or services, misrepresented
them, or took payment without lawful justification.
• Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act requires a
debtor-creditor-supplier chain — and NPCL, as the party
providing (or claiming to provide) the parking service and
collecting payment, is the supplier in that chain.[/indent]
Even though NPCL is not supplying a physical product, they are
charging for a “service” (parking enforcement). If that service
was misrepresented (for example, issuing charges without lawful
authority), they are still treated as the supplier responsible
for that misrepresentation.
So yes, NPCL qualifies as the “supplier” for the purposes of
either a debit card chargeback or a Section 75 credit card
claim.
#Post#: 76920--------------------------------------------------
Re: Small Claim Track/ NPC is defendant, private parking Garston
Park Parade Watford
DIR By: Faiza
Date: June 17, 2025, 4:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I will initiate chargeback first thing in the morning with all
the details outlined above by the experts. Will keep posted of
outcome 😃
Thank you.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page