DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 119752--------------------------------------------------
Re: Elite Parking PCN – “Free 1 hr / Failure to Register” –
Eddington Avenue, Cambridge – POPLA appeal lost
DIR By: willg88
Date: May 26, 2026, 8:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> Was the driver ever revealed to the operator in either of the
appeals?
>
--- End Quote ---
Quick update: claim form now received from Elite / DCB Legal.
Issue date: 18 May 2026. AoS has been filed online, defending
the whole claim and not contesting jurisdiction.
PoC are the usual sparse DCB wording: vehicle DU69 VJZ at
Eddington 4HR Zone, alleged contravention 09/09/2025, “Vehicle
Not Registered On JustPark App Or Displaying P&D Ticket”. They
plead driver liability and, in the alternative, keeper liability
under POFA Sch 4. Amount claimed is £263.80, including £170 “PC
and damages”, £35 court fee and £50 legal costs.
I understand the forum no longer writes defences, so I am
drafting my own concise MCOL defence. The proposed defence
points are:
1. PoC are sparse / CPR 16.4 issue: no actual contractual term,
sign wording, location of sign, period of parking or calculation
of £170 properly pleaded.
2. No contract formed: no clear Elite entrance sign on the
actual route used to the street-side bays.
3. Tariff board at the bay prominently states “Up to 1 hr –
Free”; alleged registration requirement not integrated into that
tariff line or sufficiently prominent.
4. Elite’s evidence appears unreliable: hand-drawn map shows
signage locations that do not exist on the route, and their
signage photos appear to be from the hotel-side row, not the
street-side row used.
5. They have not proved the alleged terms were visible / legible
/ incorporated at the actual bay.
6. Insofar as they rely on keeper liability, POFA compliance is
denied. NtK appears to rely on para 8 despite no windscreen NtD
and does not state a compliant period of parking.
7. £70 add-on disputed as unrecoverable double recovery.
My deadline should be 20 June 2026 at 4pm, based on issue date
18 May and AoS filed.
Could someone please sanity-check whether those are the right
defence headings for this Elite / Eddington claim, and whether
anything obvious is missing before I finalise the MCOL defence?
POC
1. The defendent (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a
Parking Charge (PC) issued to vehicle DU69VJZ at Eddington 4HR
Zone, Cambridge, CB3 1AD
2. The date of the contravention is 09/09/2025 and the D was
issued with a PC by the claimaint
3. The Defendent is pursued ad the driver of the vehicle breach
of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Vehicle Not
Registered On Just Park App Or Displaying P&D Ticket.
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper
pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170.00 being the total of the PC and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the
County Courts ACT 1984 from the date herof at a daily rate of
£0.02 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees
Total amount £263.80 (£35 court fee, £50 Legal representative's
costs)
#Post#: 120339--------------------------------------------------
Re: Elite Parking PCN – “Free 1 hr / Failure to Register” –
Eddington Avenue, Cambridge – POPLA appeal lost
DIR By: willg88
Date: June 1, 2026, 2:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's my defence if anyone could please sense-check for me
[member=6750]InterCity125[/member] ?
Defence
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. No sum is
owed
to the Claimant.
2. The Particulars of Claim are sparse, generic and fail to
comply
with CPR 16.4. They do not plead the precise contractual terms
relied upon, the wording of the sign said to create the
contract,
the location of that sign, any proper period of parking, or how
the sum of £170 has been calculated.
3. The Claimant alleges: “Vehicle Not Registered On JustPark App
Or Displaying P&D Ticket”. This is insufficient to establish a
cause of action. The Claimant has not pleaded the actual term
allegedly breached, when or where that term was incorporated, or
how the alleged breach arose.
4. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle DU69 VJZ.
The Claimant pleads liability as driver and, in the alternative,
keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012. Liability is denied on either basis.
5. Insofar as the Claimant relies upon keeper liability, it is
denied that the Notice to Keeper complied with Schedule 4 of
POFA
2012. The Notice to Keeper purported to rely on paragraph 8
despite no Notice to Driver having been served, and failed to
state a compliant period of parking.
6. The Defendant denies that any clear, prominent and
enforceable
term requiring registration to obtain the advertised free hour
was
incorporated into any contract at the location used.
7. The vehicle was parked in a street-side bay at Eddington. The
only bay-level sign visible at that location was a tariff board
prominently stating “Up to 1 hr – Free”.
8. Any alleged requirement to register using JustPark or a
payment
machine was not integrated into the “Up to 1 hr – Free” tariff
line and was not displayed with the prominence or transparency
required for a term said to create liability for a £100 charge.
9. Further, insofar as registration through JustPark required a
booking or transaction fee, the advertised “Free” hour was
materially qualified. That qualification was not presented with
sufficient prominence in the tariff line relied upon by the
motorist.
10. There was no clear Elite entrance sign on the actual route
taken to the street-side bays warning that vehicles must
register
on arrival in order to obtain the advertised free hour.
11. The alleged registration term was therefore not fairly or
adequately brought to the driver’s attention before or at the
point of parking. No contract can be formed unless the alleged
terms are clearly brought to the driver’s attention before or at
the time of contracting.
12. The Claimant’s previous evidential material included a
hand-drawn site plan and signage photographs which do not
accurately reflect the actual route taken or the street-side row
used.
13. The Defendant’s position is that the Claimant’s plan shows
signage locations which are not present on the actual route to
the
relevant street-side bays.
14. The signage photographs previously relied upon by the
Claimant
appear to relate to a different hotel-side row, separated from
the
street-side bays by landscaping, and do not prove what signage
was
visible or legible from the bay used.
15. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the alleged
contractual terms were present, visible, legible and
sufficiently
prominent from the actual bay and actual approach route used on
09/09/2025.
16. The Claimant is further put to strict proof of the accuracy
of
any site plan relied upon, including the precise location,
orientation, wording, height and visibility of each sign said to
apply to the street-side bays.
17. The Defendant avers that the signage relied upon by the
Claimant was inadequate, unclear and non-representative of the
location used. The purported registration requirement was, at
best, buried in dense wording and was not sufficiently prominent
to override the clear tariff representation of “Up to 1 hr –
Free”.
18. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires consumer terms and
notices to be transparent and prominent. A hidden or
insufficiently prominent qualification to an advertised “Free”
tariff cannot fairly create liability for a £100 charge.
19. The facts are distinguishable from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
[2015] UKSC 67. In Beavis, the charge was upheld in the context
of
clear, repeated and prominent signage. Here, the issue is that
the
decisive registration term was not clearly incorporated at the
actual location used.
20. Accordingly, no enforceable contract was formed.
Alternatively, if any contract was formed, the alleged
registration requirement was not incorporated and no breach of
that alleged term is proven.
21. The Particulars plead no proper period of parking. A bare
allegation of contravention and a generic reason do not
establish
how long the vehicle was parked, what contractual term was
breached, or how the alleged breach arose.
22. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the period of parking
relied upon and of any evidence showing that the vehicle was
parked in breach of clearly communicated terms.
23. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority from
the
landowner to operate, issue charges, and conduct litigation in
respect of the specific street-side bays relied upon.
24. The claimed sum of £170 is denied. The Particulars fail to
identify what part is the original parking charge and what part
is
alleged damages or added recovery costs.
25. Any sum added above the original parking charge is disputed
as
unrecoverable double recovery. The Claimant is put to strict
proof
of the legal and contractual basis for every sum claimed.
#Post#: 123958--------------------------------------------------
Re: Elite Parking PCN – “Free 1 hr / Failure to Register” –
Eddington Avenue, Cambridge – POPLA appeal lost
DIR By: willg88
Date: July 7, 2026, 6:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
DCB emailed me on 26/06/2026 saying their client intended to
proceed and attached the Claimant’s N180, saying it had been
filed with the court. I had not received any N149A / DQ notice
from the court at that point.
I called CNBC on 06/07/2026. They told me no DQs had been issued
to either party, that DCB had sent/filed an N180 before being
asked, and that no intention to proceed had been filed at that
stage. They said the Claimant had until 4pm on 06/07/2026 to
file/notify intention to proceed.
MCOL showed no update after 5pm on 06/07/2026.
On 07/07/2026, MCOL updated with:
Case Stay Lifted on 07/07/2026
DQ sent to you on 07/07/2026
DQ filed by claimant on 07/07/2026
I called CNBC again. They said the case had been automatically
stayed on 06/07/2026 because no response had been recorded by
the deadline. They then said the stay was lifted after the
Claimant’s intention to proceed was processed, but they could
not tell me the date/time it was actually received. They also
said there was no application fee and no judge/legal adviser
involvement.
This seems procedurally wrong to me. If the stay was automatic
because no response was recorded by the deadline, surely the
Claimant should have to show it filed intention to proceed in
time, or else apply to lift the stay and explain the delay.
I’m considering a formal procedural complaint/request for
clarification asking for the exact date/time/method of receipt
of the intention to proceed, why the claim was stayed if it was
received in time, and on what basis the stay was lifted without
application, fee, or judicial/legal adviser involvement.
I will still file my own DQ on time, without prejudice to my
objection.
Any views on how best to challenge this?
#Post#: 123960--------------------------------------------------
Urgent MCOL/DCB issue: claim stayed then lifted next day without
application - DQ now issued
DIR By: willg88
Date: July 7, 2026, 6:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I’m starting a fresh post because this is now an urgent
MCOL/CNBC/DCB procedural issue rather than the original signage
point.
Solicitor:DCB Legal
Defence submitted: 02/06/2026 at 10:44
Defence received: 02/06/2026 at 14:05
After my defence was filed, DCB repeatedly called me. I did not
discuss the case by phone.
On 26/06/2026 at 15:39, DCB emailed me saying:
> “Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to
inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.”
They also attached the Claimant’s completed N180 Directions
Questionnaire, saying it had been filed with the Court. At this
point, I had not received any N149A Notice of Proposed
Allocation or Directions Questionnaire from the court.
I called CNBC on 06/07/2026. I was told:
* no Directions Questionnaires had been issued to either party;
* DCB had filed/sent an N180 before being asked;
* no intention to proceed had been filed at that point;
* the Claimant had until 4pm on 06/07/2026 to notify intention
to proceed;
* if they did not, the court would decide the next step.
MCOL still showed no update after 5pm on 06/07/2026.
On 07/07/2026, MCOL updated with:
* Case Stay Lifted on 07/07/2026
* DQ sent to you on 07/07/2026
* DQ filed by claimant on 07/07/2026
I called CNBC again. I was told the case had been automatically
stayed on 06/07/2026 because no response had been recorded by
the deadline. I was then told the stay was lifted after the
Claimant’s intention to proceed was processed, but CNBC could
not confirm the date/time it was actually received. I was also
told there was no application fee and no judge/legal adviser
involvement. It sounded like an administrative/automatic lifting
of the stay.
My concern is that if the claim was automatically stayed because
no response was recorded by the deadline, the Claimant should
have to show it filed/notified intention to proceed in time. If
it did not, surely the stay should remain unless the Claimant
applies to lift the stay and explains the delay.
I am planning to file my own DQ on time, but “without prejudice”
to my objection about the stay being lifted.
I am also considering sending a formal procedural
complaint/request for clarification asking CNBC:
1. What exact date/time was the Claimant’s intention to proceed
received?
2. By what method was it received?
3. If it was received in time, why was the claim automatically
stayed on 06/07/2026?
4. If it was not received in time, why was the stay lifted
without application or fee?
5. Was the Claimant’s premature N180 treated as intention to
proceed?
6. If so, on what basis, given no N149A/DQ directions had been
issued at the time?
7. Was the stay lifted administratively or by a judge/legal
adviser?
Does anyone have experience of this specific MCOL/CNBC issue,
especially DCB filing an N180 before N149A and then a stay being
lifted the next day?
What is the best way to challenge this without risking my own DQ
compliance?
MCOL screenshot for reference:
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/43v2f9N7/MCOL-defence-received-02-06-2026-copy.png
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/RqrwJggn/MCOL-stay-lifted-DQ-07-07-2026-copy.png
Previous topic:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/elite-parking-pcn-free-1-hr-failure-to-register-eddington-avenue-cambridge-popla/msg123958/#msg123958
#Post#: 123982--------------------------------------------------
Re: Urgent MCOL/DCB issue: claim stayed then lifted next day
without application - DQ now issued
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 7, 2026, 9:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: willg88 link ---
>
> What is the best way to challenge this without risking my own
DQ compliance?
>
--- End Quote ---
You seem to have answered that question yourself:
--- Quote from: willg88 link ---
>
> I will still file my own DQ on time
>
--- End Quote ---
With regards to challenging the issue, discovering the cause
might be your biggest issue. If the stay has been lifted without
the need for an application from Elite Parking, the error might
be a technical issue on the part of the MCOL system, rather than
an omission on the part of the claimant. You can investigate
this to the best of your ability, but the clock won't stop on
the claim whilst you do so, so be careful not to become too
side-tracked.
#Post#: 123986--------------------------------------------------
Re: Elite Parking PCN – “Free 1 hr / Failure to Register” –
Eddington Avenue, Cambridge – POPLA appeal lost
DIR By: willg88
Date: July 7, 2026, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Appreciate the reply DWMB2. I've sent my DQ N180 proactively to
DCB legal and the Civil National Business Centre email, even
though I haven't received the form in the post.
DCB served its N180 prematurely by email on 26 June 2026, so it
will be interesting to see what/if anything the courts admin say
to this.
Will keep this thread updated!
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page