Thank you for confirming the interpreter booking. I have not yet received any formal notice of the hearing date or directions. Please could you confirm whether the Notice of Hearing or Notice of Allocation has been issued?
Didn't have a clue what it was about so called them and gave them the email ref number. They said it was in reference to parking and they tried to get me to confirm reg number saying that they take data protections VERY VERY seriously, and as I have more than 1 vehicle, I gave the 1st 2 characters of the vehicle I didn't think it would be and they confirmed it wasn't that.
I said that it told me all I needed to know and unless there was a court order we had nothing to discuss..and he kept interrupting by unprofessionally forced laughing saying that "their clients ZZPS" is very litiguous and always will sue and they will issue me with a CCJ. I told them that only the court could issue a CCJ, and by all means, take me to court, again with the laughing and "ahhh entitlement, thank you so much for that today ma'am (more laughing) I love it when people try to tell me my job, love.....we'll continue to progress and will be adding more charges"
I just ended the call at that point. The complete unprofessionalism assured me that I had nothing to worry about. Prior to getting this email, I had been getting emails from ZZPS, which I had been ignoring, so this was a progression from this.
In an earlier post, you said that you rang the Debt Collectors and spoke to them, so, with respect, why are you now unable to take a telephone mediation?
Good. That is one less waste of time and effort needed. The claim will now be located to you local county court and a procedural judge will make an order regarding the case.
The most basic of orders will be to set a date and time for the hearing and a deadline for the claimant to pay the £27 trial fee. They will also set a deadline for the submission of witness statements and any other evidence either party is going to rely on.
You must understand that this will never reach a hearing before a judge as DCB Legal will discontinue before they are required to pay the trial fee. As a matter of interest, considering your disability, how would you expect a (excuse the pun) 'hearing' to take place in person?
Didn't have a clue what it was about so called them and gave them the email ref number. They said it was in reference to parking and they tried to get me to confirm reg number saying that they take data protections VERY VERY seriously, and as I have more than 1 vehicle, I gave the 1st 2 characters of the vehicle I didn't think it would be and they confirmed it wasn't that.
I said that it told me all I needed to know and unless there was a court order we had nothing to discuss..and he kept interrupting by unprofessionally forced laughing saying that "their clients ZZPS" is very litiguous and always will sue and they will issue me with a CCJ. I told them that only the court could issue a CCJ, and by all means, take me to court, again with the laughing and "ahhh entitlement, thank you so much for that today ma'am (more laughing) I love it when people try to tell me my job, love.....we'll continue to progress and will be adding more charges"
I just ended the call at that point. The complete unprofessionalism assured me that I had nothing to worry about. Prior to getting this email, I had been getting emails from ZZPS, which I had been ignoring, so this was a progression from this.
Subject: Claim No: [XXXX] – Mediation Appointment
Dear Tonisha,
Thank you for your email.
You state that you “reached out” with alternative arrangements. I must rebut that assertion. I have received no such communication, whether by email or post. If you contend otherwise, I require you to produce evidence of sending — either email header metadata (for email) or proof of posting (for post). Absent such evidence, your claim carries no weight.
Furthermore, the new date of 01/10/2025 was imposed without reference to the dates of non-availability I already provided on my N180 Directions Questionnaire. It is not reasonable to disregard this information. If mediation is to proceed, I require you to offer me a selection of dates which exclude those periods I have already identified as unavailable.
For clarity, my position remains that this claim is entirely without merit. My settlement position is £0, and therefore the utility of mediation is extremely limited. In truth, the whole exercise risks being a waste of everyone’s time and resources. A more proportionate use of court resources may be to dispense with mediation altogether and allow the claim to proceed to allocation. Nevertheless, if mediation is insisted upon, I am prepared to engage provided it is conducted in an accessible format with a BSL interpreter present and scheduled at a mutually convenient date.
Please confirm that my requirements are properly recorded on the file so that further avoidable errors do not occur.
Kind regards,
[Your Name]
I don't have much more to add other than that already helpfully shared by b789 above, other than to say if you have time, you may wish to respond to the private parking consultation in b789's signature.
Whilst this latest issue is a symptom of the largely automated court process, rather than the conduct of the parking company per se, it's an example of yet another hurdle faced by disabled people in what is already a stressful process. If parking companies operated ethically, this farce would have been resolved with one letter to the parking company, explaining that an occupant of the vehicle was entitled to reasonable adjustments and did hold a blue badge. Instead, the farce rolls on...
I can appreciate your frustration. You need to contact the court right away to flag both the deafness/BSL interpreter requirement and the unsuitability of telephone mediation.
Telephone mediation is obviously inaccessible for you, and the court should never have booked it once you had made them aware of your hearing needs on the N180. They can (and should) either offer an in-person mediation with a BSL interpreter present, or simply bypass mediation and move the claim to the next stage.
Here’s how I would suggest you handle it:
Subject: Urgent – Mediation Accessibility Issue – Claim No: [XXXX]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing in complete exasperation at the latest procedural blunder in this matter.
Despite clearly stating on my N180 Directions Questionnaire that I am profoundly deaf and require a British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter, and that I cannot participate in telephone mediation, I have now received an appointment for a telephone mediation on 9 September 2025.
This is an utterly pointless and discriminatory arrangement, and one that demonstrates a complete failure to read, process, or act upon the information I provided. I do not recall ever supplying a telephone number, precisely because I cannot use the telephone.
To make matters worse, the date chosen is one I have already said I am not available. I am currently undergoing urgent hospital treatment following suspected spinal cord compression. I have recently been discharged from hospital, have undergone an MRI, and may require surgery. My medical condition is affecting the motor function in my hands, making even sign language communication extremely difficult at times.
It is unacceptable that my stated communication needs have been ignored and that an inaccessible and unsuitable mediation format has been imposed on me. This is a direct breach of the court’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.
I require the following to happen immediately:1. Cancellation of the 9 September telephone mediation.
2. Confirmation that mediation will only take place in an accessible format, i.e., in person with a BSL interpreter provided and paid for by the court.
3. Formal notation on my file of my disability and communication requirements so that I am not subjected to this farce again.
I will be placing a copy of this correspondence before the court at any hearing to show the ongoing procedural failures in this matter. I reserve the right to seek costs for unreasonable behaviour if this vexatious claim continues — particularly as the claimant’s solicitors, DCB Legal, have a well-documented track record of discontinuing defended claims before trial.
Please confirm receipt and confirm the above actions without delay.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
and entitlement to park in the disabled space.Especially not this because, as you found, you don’t have an unconditional entitlement to park in the disabled space, and you didn’t comply with the conditions.
I presume no mention at this point about having a valid badge and entitlement to park in the disabled space.
OK I see (I think!) - not been in this position before.Read the reply Reply #21 from b789 more slowly, it answers your questions here.
The AoS process looks a bit complicated, is the defence bit a matter of logging onto MCOL and putting in the code and submitting that defence? Where does the draft order come in
IN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
UK Parking Control Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
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 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 CPR PD 16(7.5);
(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 attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.
5. 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 for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
their choice of unregulated private parking company to issue unfair invoices to genuine Lidl customers.
So I tried to get in touch with Lidl, to get a direct number for the store. No such thing these days it seems.Phoning them does not in any way get the detail of b789's response in front of the correct person. It needs to be done in writing by emailing the relevant person/people.
I explained the situation to them and they said that that car park was a private car park and I had to appeal to them.
Store Manager
Lidl [Store Location]
[Store Address]
[City, Postcode]
Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Parking Charge Issued to a Blue Badge Holder
Dear Store Manager,
I am writing as the registered keeper of a vehicle that was issued an unjust parking charge notice (PCN) by your appointed parking management company, UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC), for an alleged contravention at your store’s car park on 29th November 2024. The driver of the vehicle, a regular patron of Lidl, utilised one of the accessible parking spaces during this visit.
The driver holds a valid Blue Badge, which was displayed at the start of the visit. However, upon returning to the vehicle, it was discovered that the Blue Badge had fallen to the floor. This may have occurred due to the boot being opened to retrieve shopping bags, causing a draft through the vehicle while the front door was open. Despite this unfortunate circumstance, the driver was fully entitled to use the accessible parking space as a Blue Badge holder. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the Blue Badge for your reference.
I wish to bring to your attention that under the Equality Act 2010, businesses and service providers, including Lidl and its agents, have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that disabled customers are not placed at a disadvantage. The failure to display a badge does not negate the fact that the driver is a disabled individual with a lawful right to use accessible parking spaces. The driver's disability does not cease to exist simply because a badge temporarily fell out of view.
UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC) is an unregulated private parking company, and their PCN is simply a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. However, the issuance of this charge is an insult to a genuine customer of Lidl who was entitled to use the space provided.
Additionally, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by UKPC fails to comply with all the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The NtK does not specify a period of parking, as required by PoFA, but instead only shows a single moment in time. This fundamental flaw in the NtK renders it non-compliant and unenforceable against the registered keeper. The Brennan v Premier Parking appeal case confirmed that a period of parking must be recorded, and a single timestamp is insufficient to demonstrate a parking contravention.
Your appointed parking management company has issued a parking charge of £100 for an alleged breach of terms and conditions. This charge is both disproportionate and unjustified, particularly given the context. By allowing such a charge to be pursued against a disabled patron, Lidl risks being in breach of its legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
As the registered keeper, I respectfully request that Lidl intervenes with its parking management company to ensure that this charge is cancelled immediately. Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you could review your current parking enforcement practices to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. It is imperative that Lidl ensures its agents act in accordance with equality legislation and do not penalise disabled individuals unfairly.
I trust that Lidl values its customers and will take swift action to resolve this matter. Please confirm receipt of this letter and provide an update on the steps being taken to cancel the parking charge.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
Enclosures: Copy of Blue Badge
Subject: Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [PCN Reference Number]
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing as the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced in the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). I wish to appeal this charge on the following grounds:
1. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC) fails to comply with the requirements of PoFA to hold the registered keeper liable. Specifically, the NtK does not specify a period of parking, only a single moment in time. This is a fundamental requirement under Schedule 4 of PoFA, which clearly states that a period of parking must be identified. Without this, the NtK is non-compliant, and liability cannot be transferred to the registered keeper.
The importance of specifying a period of parking is supported by persuasive appeals case law. In Brennan v Premier Parking Logistics (2023), it was confirmed that a single timestamp does not constitute a period of parking and is insufficient to demonstrate a contravention. The court in that case ruled that a lack of a specified period rendered the NtK non-compliant with PoFA.
2. Inadequate and Non-Compliant SignageThe signage at the location fails to comply with the standards set out in the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The terms and conditions, including the parking charge amount, must be clearly visible and legible to drivers before they park. However, at this location, the signage is unclear, with important terms hidden in small print that would not be easily noticed by drivers.
In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of prominent signage to establish a contractual agreement. In this case, the court ruled that clear and prominent signage was essential to forming a contract with a driver. The failure of UKPC's signage to meet these standards means that no contract could have been formed, and the parking charge is unenforceable.
Additionally, the failure to adequately bring the charge amount to the driver’s attention is a breach of Schedule 4 of PoFA and the PPSCoP. The charge must be prominently displayed to avoid allegations of entrapment or unfair practices. The BPA Code of Practice also requires that parking charges must not be hidden in terms and conditions but should be clearly brought to the attention of drivers. The signage at this location falls far short of these requirements.
3. Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination Against a Disabled Driver
The driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention is a Blue Badge holder and fully entitled to use the accessible parking space. The Blue Badge was displayed during the visit but was later found to have fallen to the floor. Under the Equality Act 2010, service providers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals to ensure they are not placed at a disadvantage.
Penalising a disabled customer for circumstances beyond their control, such as a badge falling to the floor, is both unreasonable and discriminatory.[/indent]
4. Misapplication of Keeper Liability and Driver AssumptionsThe registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver. In VCS v Edward (2023), the court reinforced that there is no presumption in law that the registered keeper is the driver. Parking operators must provide evidence of the driver’s identity to pursue a claim against them. Without such evidence, the claim must fail.
This case is relevant because in VCS v Edward, the judge made it clear that operators cannot simply assume the keeper was the driver and must prove who was driving at the time of the alleged contravention.
5. No Realistic Prospect of Success at POPLAGiven the numerous failings outlined above, it is clear that UKPC has no realistic prospect of defending this charge at POPLA. The NtK is non-compliant with PoFA, the signage does not meet the required standards, and the circumstances of the alleged contravention are covered under the Equality Act 2010.
UKPC is urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN immediately. Pursuing this charge further would be unreasonable and may be viewed as harassment, given the lack of a legal basis to enforce it.
Please confirm receipt of this appeal and advise of the outcome within the stipulated deadlines.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Registered Keeper