Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Clottedcream on May 18, 2026, 02:55:59 pm
-
DCB Legal will make you jump through hoops but usually discontinues rather than pay the court fee.
This is well after you send your form in. Search the forum for countless examples of what DCB Legal does, and also for advice on completing your N180 form.
-
Hi everyone,
Quick update after radio silence from DCB after I submitted my defence. I received an email from DCB from a 'Bulk Litigation' email to say their client is intending to proceed with the claim. They attached to their email a completed ' Notice of Proposed Allocation to Small Claim Track'. Interestingly in their email, they said they are willing to discuss a settlement to unironically to save the court's time. I've received the same form (attached) the Courts a couple of days that I'm intending to fill out as instructed. I have a feeling DCB Legal will pull out once I've sent the form in, is that usually the case with them at that stage?
(https://i.postimg.cc/0MQPf4JZ/allocation-1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/0MQPf4JZ)
(https://i.postimg.cc/phTRZSnY/allocation-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/phTRZSnY)
-
Defence looks good.
Further detail on PoFA non compliance can be added at the WS stage if it comes to that.
DCB Legal will pull out before Court - it will just come down to the dates from the Court as to when the hearing fee needs to be paid.
-
I don’t think you posted the N1SDT claim form, apologies if I missed it, but you have 14+5 days from its date to file AoS and a further 14 days to file a defence.
Thank you are spot on!
-
Defence I'm planning to send, grateful for any thoughts? ;)
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all.
2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver on the material date. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity. The Defendant cannot be held liable as the keeper because the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA").
3. The Particulars of Claim are sparse, generic, and fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 to 7.5. They do not adequately set out the contractual terms relied upon, the conduct said to amount to a breach, the legal basis for the sum claimed, nor the strict basis on which the Defendant is pursued as the keeper. The claim discloses no clear cause of action and should be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4.
4. Impossibility of Performance and Genuine Attempts to Pay
The vehicle entered the site at 16:47:53 on 16/08/2025. The driver made multiple genuine and serious attempts to pay for parking using the Claimant’s designated RingGo application. The application actively refused to process the payment and, after many failed attempts, generated a definitive system prompt at 16:59 stating: "Parking is currently free in this location. Please check nearby signs for when charges resume".
Because of a reasonable suspicion that the Claimant would unfairly attempt to penalise motorists for circumstances beyond their control, the driver deliberately captured these events to evidence their concerted effort to pay. The Defendant relies upon these contemporaneous screenshots—containing unalterable metadata demonstrating the exact time and system error—as Exhibit A. No contract was breached because payment was actively prevented by the Claimant’s own equipment and software failure.
5. The Grace Period and Free Parking Tariff
The Claimant's published tariff for this site confirms that parking is free from 17:00. The Claimant's legal representatives have stated that payment was required for the 13 minutes the vehicle was on site prior to 17:00. However, the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice mandates a grace period allowing a driver time to enter the site, read the terms, and attempt to make payment. The entire 13-minute window was consumed by the driver's multiple, frustrated attempts to use the Claimant's broken payment app.
6. Chronology of Ignored Correspondence
The Defendant has maintained a consistent dialogue with the Claimant and their representatives, yet at no point have the material issues been directly addressed:
- 15 September 2025: The Defendant appealed the initial charge, explicitly stating that the RingGo app denied payment and providing the metadata evidence of the timestamps.
- 8 October 2025: The Claimant rejected the appeal with a generic template stating that there were "no transactions" for the vehicle, entirely ignoring the fact that their own system blocked the transaction.
- 3 December 2025: The Defendant issued a further challenge, reiterating that a motorist cannot be penalised when the authorised channel blocks payment and declares the period free.
- 29 December 2025: The Claimant refused to engage with this evidence, simply stating the POPLA deadline had passed.
- 1 June 2026: The Defendant corresponded directly with DCB Legal, highlighting the multiple failed app attempts and questioning the typical grace period allowed before payment is due. DCB Legal disregarded the app failure, ignored the grace period question, and simply demanded a heightened balance of £264.48. This correspondence is attached as Exhibit B.
7. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the signage in place on the material date, including its exact terms, prominence, lighting, and compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. The Defendant avers that the signage and the corresponding digital payment infrastructure were contradictory and entirely inadequate to form any contract with the driver.
8. The Claimant claims a total of £170.00, representing the original Parking Charge and added damages. The Claimant’s added “debt recovery” or “damages” sum is an abuse of process. It is not recoverable under POFA, the BPA Code of Practice, or the Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The Government’s 2022 Impact Assessment confirms that such add-ons are designed to extort money from motorists and are unlawful. Numerous County Court judgments have struck out or disallowed these false add-ons.
9. Even if a contract had been formed (which is expressly denied), the Claimant has suffered no loss. The original parking tariff was not paid exclusively due to the Claimant’s own failure to provide a working payment mechanism. Any alleged breach was caused by the Claimant’s failure, not the driver’s conduct.
10. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its landowner authority. The Defendant does not believe the Claimant has the requisite standing to issue charges or pursue litigation in its own name. A strict chain of authority is required.
11. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no real prospect of success and being an abuse of process. In the alternative, the Defendant requests that the claim be dismissed.
12. The Defendant reserves the right to amend or supplement this Defence should further information be provided by the Claimant.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
-
I don’t think you posted the N1SDT claim form, apologies if I missed it, but you have 14+5 days from its date to file AoS and a further 14 days to file a defence.
-
update managed to get through at 16:59 - they said I've got till the 13th June and have shared the link to the N9B form.
-
Hi All again,
I was planning to submit my defence via MCOL today but I've been met with this message:
"A bar has been put in place on this claim. You cannot respond to the claim at this time."
I received the letter of claim on the 11/05 and submitted the AoS on 21nd May (MCOL say it was processed on the 22nd). I'm sure I have 28 days from the letter of the claim to respond but I'm not receiving any option on MCOL. I'm on the phone to CNBC but not confident I'll get through before their closing time.
-
thank you so much, I'll give that a go and see how I get on :)
-
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for your Letter of Claim which arrived today.
I write as the individual named on your letter.
Liability for the debt is categorically denied.
As I understand it, the driver is not known to your client and, given that your client's Notice to Keeper is not PoFA compliant, there is no other route to liability in this matter.
I am sorry that I am unable to help you further.
Best wishes,
xxxxx xxxxxxxx
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/yDY1WDbw/IMG-0975.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/yDY1WDbw)
(https://i.postimg.cc/mP2LhP5v/IMG-0976.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/mP2LhP5v)
Original PCN now linked. Euro Car Parks were surprisingly quick with the subject access request.
-
Great idea, thank you will do just that.
-
Noted, but you might still want to send a Subject Access Request to ECP to obtain the original PCN.
-
Thank you so much for your response. For the life of me I can't seem to find the original PCN. I must have banished it the depths of hell after I responded. Thankfully, I've not outed the driver and have addressed everything from the presecptive of registered keeper.
-
It might be helpful to post the original PCN; apologies if you did but I don’t see it.
You have responded to the Letter of Claim, good.
I do not see why you would not have a case which would hold up in court.
DCB Legal will make you jump through hoops but usually discontinues rather than pay the court fee. So I suggest you think of a simple defence to the court claim which will appear in due course. Your evidence would be in the form of a witness statement under oath should it ever go to court.
-
Hi everyone,
I am hoping to get some advice from the experts here on a Letter of Claim I have received from DCB Legal, acting for Euro Car Parks. I am the registered keeper and intend to deny the claim, but I wanted to run the situation past you all first.
Past experiences with Euro Car Parks have instilled a strict habit of ensuring valid paid parking is always in place, which is exactly why these events were recorded as they happened when parking could not be purchased.
Here is a quick breakdown of what happened:
- The driver entered the car park at The Priory Shopping Centre, Dartford around 16:50 on Saturday 16 August 2025.
- The driver immediately attempted to pay using the operator's designated RingGo app but kept receiving an error message.
- The driver was not simply waiting around until 17:00 for the free parking to commence; they made several genuine attempts to pay during this 10-minute window.
- After several failed attempts, the app refused payment at 16:59 and displayed a message: "Parking is currently free in this location. Please check nearby signs for when charges resume."
- Screenshots were taken at this point. These contain unalterable metadata showing the exact time, location, and system error, proving the driver was completely unable to pay despite trying.
- Physical signs state charges apply Monday to Saturday from 07:00 to 17:00. Because the app explicitly advised it was free just before this charging period ended, the driver relied on that information.
I later received a PCN claiming a breach for not having a valid pay and display ticket. I appealed as the keeper, explaining their system was at fault, but Euro Car Parks rejected the appeal on 8 October 2025. I missed their rejection letter at the time, which meant I also missed the POPLA deadline.
I have now received a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal dated 20 February 2026, pursuing £170. My stance is that a motorist cannot be penalised for breach of contract when the operator's own payment system makes it impossible to pay and explicitly says no tariff is due.
I'd really appreciate your thoughts on whether this is a robust defence before I move forward.
Thanks very much in advance for your time and guidance.
(Really sorry I'm such a noob I couldn't get the formatting right)
(https://i.postimg.cc/v4PJrsvp/dcb.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/v4PJrsvp)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MnKkfT1D/Euro-1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/MnKkfT1D)
(https://i.postimg.cc/gxk9LJ3s/Euro-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/gxk9LJ3s)
(https://i.postimg.cc/0ztTYsfR/letter-to-DCB.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/0ztTYsfR)
(https://i.postimg.cc/K3zqvKdC/Appeal-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/K3zqvKdC)
(https://i.postimg.cc/643j57DD/appeal-3.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/643j57DD)
(https://i.postimg.cc/H8xZsJqY/Euro-appeal-response-1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/H8xZsJqY)
```