DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 104014--------------------------------------------------
DBCL Debt Recovery Permit did not cover stay - Euro Car Parks -
All Saints Colchester
DIR By: gf4444
Date: December 29, 2025, 4:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We received this letter last week which is the first
notification of an issue. We've discovered that the V5C wasn't
updated when we moved house which explains why the original
letters weren't received (it's now been changed), my wife is the
registered keeper.
We don't have the email receipt from the parking but can see on
the credit card statement that parking was paid for on that
date.
The car park is here -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/CkLmb3FUtTJfZTF59
Letter is here -
HTML https://ibb.co/q3vsRrmt
Any help with this is gratefully received.
#Post#: 104034--------------------------------------------------
Re: DBCL Debt Recovery Permit did not cover stay - Euro Car
Parks - All Saints Colchester
DIR By: b789
Date: December 29, 2025, 9:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Luckily for you, this is just ECP and I can assure you with
greater that 99.9% certainty that if you follow the advice you
receive here, you will not be paying a penny to ECP.
Whilst you have now updated your V5C, that does not solve the
issue that ECP now hold two possible addresses for you. This
WILL end up being a county court claim and you do not want a
claim going to the wrong address and not being responded to.
The first thing you MUST do immediately, is send the ECP Data
Protection Officer (DPO) a Data Rectification Notice (DRN) which
instructs them to update their records with your (the Keepers)
current address for service and to erase all other addresses
they ay hold. The highlighted words are there for a reason, so
use them.
You can safely ignore any debt recovery letters from DCBL or any
other powerless debt collector. They are not a party to the
contract allegedly breached by the driver. All they can do is
try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree
into paying out of ignorance and fear.
You will eventually receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB
Legal (not DCBL). When you do, let us know. Eventually, you will
receive an actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC, which you will
show us, only redacting your personal details. Leave the issue
date visible and the Particulars of Claim (PoC). We will give
you the advice on how to defend it with a template defence.
Eventually, the claim will either be struck out or discontinued
just before they have to pay the £27 trial fee.
There are countless ECP PCNs being discussed on the forum and
every one is advised the same. As long as the claim is defended,
they all end up struck out or discontinued. Search the forum for
them to see how they are handled and what happens when.
#Post#: 104053--------------------------------------------------
Re: DBCL Debt Recovery Permit did not cover stay - Euro Car
Parks - All Saints Colchester
DIR By: gf4444
Date: December 30, 2025, 5:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Luckily for you, this is just ECP and I can assure you with
greater that 99.9% certainty that if you follow the advice you
receive here, you will not be paying a penny to ECP.
>
> Whilst you have now updated your V5C, that does not solve the
issue that ECP now hold two possible addresses for you. This
WILL end up being a county court claim and you do not want a
claim going to the wrong address and not being responded to.
>
> The first thing you MUST do immediately, is send the ECP Data
Protection Officer (DPO) a Data Rectification Notice (DRN) which
instructs them to update their records with your (the Keepers)
current address for service and to erase all other addresses
they ay hold. The highlighted words are there for a reason, so
use them.
>
> You can safely ignore any debt recovery letters from DCBL or
any other powerless debt collector. They are not a party to the
contract allegedly breached by the driver. All they can do is
try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree
into paying out of ignorance and fear.
>
> You will eventually receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB
Legal (not DCBL). When you do, let us know. Eventually, you will
receive an actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC, which you will
show us, only redacting your personal details. Leave the issue
date visible and the Particulars of Claim (PoC). We will give
you the advice on how to defend it with a template defence.
>
> Eventually, the claim will either be struck out or
discontinued just before they have to pay the £27 trial fee.
>
> There are countless ECP PCNs being discussed on the forum and
every one is advised the same. As long as the claim is defended,
they all end up struck out or discontinued. Search the forum for
them to see how they are handled and what happens when.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you, that's incredibly useful. When we email the DPO,
should we reference the PCN # for them to update their records
on and/or the vehicle registration? I just want to make sure
that we're doing the correct action first off rather than them
having any come back.
Thanks.
#Post#: 104082--------------------------------------------------
Re: DBCL Debt Recovery Permit did not cover stay - Euro Car
Parks - All Saints Colchester
DIR By: b789
Date: December 30, 2025, 9:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes. You should always reference any PCN and your VRM.
#Post#: 107215--------------------------------------------------
Re: DBCL Debt Recovery Permit did not cover stay - Euro Car
Parks - All Saints Colchester
DIR By: gf4444
Date: January 24, 2026, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Letter of claim received today along with the 3rd or 4th Final
Reminder which was dated after the LoC.
"Final" Reminder -
HTML https://ibb.co/cjV5HdY
HTML https://ibb.co/cjV5HdY
LoC -
HTML https://ibb.co/V8cG1Tj
HTML https://ibb.co/V8cG1Tj
I guess that it's now just a case of waiting for the N1SDT now?
Thanks.
#Post#: 107965--------------------------------------------------
Re: DBCL Debt Recovery Permit did not cover stay - Euro Car
Parks - All Saints Colchester
DIR By: gf4444
Date: January 30, 2026, 2:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A new LoC has been received as it turns out that they're
pursuing two claims which explains why it seemed like we were
receiving Final Reminders before a Notice of Debt Recovery. We
didn't notice that the reference numbers on those letters were
different until this LoC was received which bundles the cost and
references together.
New LoC -
HTML https://ibb.co/tpp35L6T
HTML https://ibb.co/tpp35L6T
#Post#: 111954--------------------------------------------------
Re: DBCL Debt Recovery Permit did not cover stay - Euro Car
Parks - All Saints Colchester - N1SDT now received
DIR By: gf4444
Date: March 3, 2026, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC now received (2 links to the same
file, in case one doesn't work) -
HTML https://postimg.cc/JDPKp7dc
HTML https://postimg.cc/JDPKp7dc
HTML https://ibb.co/vxnrxFbx
HTML https://ibb.co/vxnrxFbx
We'd really appreciate what to do next now that we're at this
stage. Thank you.
#Post#: 112163--------------------------------------------------
Re: DBCL Debt Recovery Permit did not cover stay - Euro Car
Parks - All Saints Colchester
DIR By: gf4444
Date: March 5, 2026, 8:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, sorry to bump this but if anyone can help it would be much
appreciated.
Thanks
#Post#: 112166--------------------------------------------------
Re: DBCL Debt Recovery Permit did not cover stay - Euro Car
Parks - All Saints Colchester
DIR By: RichardW
Date: March 5, 2026, 8:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's the std POC from DCBL, so the std defence as posted by b789
should be applicable. Check that it is consistent with your
claim.
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
>
> Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit
a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence
using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the
"system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or
inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with
the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that
far.
>
> You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box
on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into
the 122 lines limit.
>
> [quote]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 adequately comply
with CPR 16.4.
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> (a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to
the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
>
> (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.
>
> 4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck
out materially similar claims of their own initiative for
failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where
the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms
relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient
clarity.
>
> 5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have
found that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. 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
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR
16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant
proposes that the following Order be made:
>
> Draft Order:
>
> Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
>
> AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they
do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of
the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are)
relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or
reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in
breach of contract.
>
> AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had
it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could
have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
>
> AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the
overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be
disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any
further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for
example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further
defence, with consequent case management).
>
> ORDER:
>
> 1. The claim is struck out.
>
> 2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
#Post#: 112168--------------------------------------------------
Re: DBCL Debt Recovery Permit did not cover stay - Euro Car
Parks - All Saints Colchester
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 5, 2026, 9:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We definitely need to see the two PCNs to give proper advice.
Most likely, ECP PCNs are not PoFA compliant so you cannot be
pursued as keeper under PoFA.
Hopefully they have no idea who the driver was.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page