Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: ngms27 on January 14, 2025, 07:28:03 pm

Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: ngms27 on October 05, 2025, 01:52:22 pm
All done, thank you very much for this help  :)
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: b789 on October 05, 2025, 11:42:52 am
With an issue date of 19th September you have until 4pm on Wednesday 8th October to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Wednesday 22nd October to submit your defence.

You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

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.
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: ngms27 on October 04, 2025, 06:10:35 pm
Form details:(https://i.ibb.co/bjZ6mz0B/claim1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/SD86yRjn)
(https://i.ibb.co/93ZnDLxk/claim2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/CsPBcZj3)
(https://i.ibb.co/vxBfM3VN/Claim3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/SXxHZt5k)
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: b789 on October 04, 2025, 12:58:31 pm
Show us the N1SDT Claim Form with the Particulars of Claim (PoC). You can discard all the other forms and paperwork that came with the claim pack.

DO NOT redact any dates when you show it. All you need to redact is your personal details, the claim number and the MCOL password. Make sure you show the back too as we need to see who has signed it.

If you are unsure how to show the form, then please re-read this as the information has changed very recently:

READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/)
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: ngms27 on October 04, 2025, 08:28:06 am
I've received a claim form whilst I've been on Holiday from HM Courts & Tribunals Service with forms etc. to fill in. Starting to panic now, what should I do next?
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: ngms27 on July 08, 2025, 07:46:32 am
Thank you, much appreciated  :)
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: b789 on July 07, 2025, 08:16:42 pm
Just respond to the LoC by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself:

Quote
Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.
7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.
11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: jfollows on July 07, 2025, 07:57:18 pm
Although we see them all the time, since you’re going to make a formal response to the Letter of Claim it could help if you show it to us. But it’s all part of the normal process, for which you will get advice for every step here.
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: ngms27 on July 07, 2025, 07:31:00 pm
Hi,

I've now received a letter of claim from DCBLegal giving me 30 days to make payment or complete a reply form and financial statement.

What do I do now?
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: b789 on January 16, 2025, 08:58:22 am
It will go to court... as in they will issue a claim. However it will never get to a hearing. hey will discontinue.

If it were to ever get as far as a hearing, why do you want to give them evidence to use against you? The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the defendant.
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: ngms27 on January 16, 2025, 08:29:37 am
That's fine, just concerned if it did go to court I'd be seen as none co-operative and weaken my case
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: b789 on January 16, 2025, 07:52:04 am
I will place odds of 1,000:1 that whatever you put in your appeal, it will be rejected. By appealing with whatever you put, you are laying a trap for yourself. KISS

If you’re going to waste time and effort on an exercise in futility, try this:

Quote
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. I Park Services has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. I Park Services have no hope at IAS, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: ngms27 on January 16, 2025, 05:46:17 am
What do you think of a reply such as:

As the registered keeper of the vehicle I wish to appeal the Parking Charge.

Upon entering the car park the driver took some time to manoeuvre into a parking space given how tight the parking spots are and the requirement to let other vehicles past. The driver then went to look at the signage and saw that there was no option to pay by card and didn’t have any cash for the machine.

At this point several attempts were made to download the bespoke uncommon application to enable payment to be made via card / google pay. This ultimately failed. The driver then got back into the car and exited the carpark. According to your cameras this was timed as 5m:42s

Passengers did not get out of the car and no business was carried out. Given this and the total time elapsed from entering to exiting the car park no parking fee was due and the parking charge is invalid.
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: DWMB2 on January 15, 2025, 04:08:04 pm
Well indeed. I just take a general approach of setting out ones stall through an initial appeal, partly because there's no harm, and means if they were to suddenly change approach and start mitigating in house for example, the defendant has already made their case, potentially making any claim seem unreasonable.
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: b789 on January 15, 2025, 03:56:01 pm
Yes... but I Park Services use DCB Legal as their bulk litigator of choice which means that no matter what has gone before, as long as the claim is defended, no matter with what. Even a nursery rhyme will suffice, and it will be discontinued before they have to pay the trial fee.
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: DWMB2 on January 15, 2025, 03:52:48 pm
My view is slightly different - if you have a meritoious defence (ie that the driver read the terms, sought to pay, couldn't and therefore left to park elsewhere), then there's certainly no harm in pointing this out to the parking company.

If you do, show us what you plan to send before appealing, and appeal only as the registered keeper, giving no hint as to who was driving.

They'll reject of course, but if they then go on to issue a court claim it can be painted as rather unreasonable (alongside other available defences).
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: b789 on January 15, 2025, 02:02:04 pm
My advice is to ignore them. Ignore everything you get, reminders and especially debt collector letters. Eventually you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC). When you receive that, come back and show us.

They will eventually issue a court claim which is very easily defended and they will discontinue in due course.
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: ngms27 on January 15, 2025, 08:14:02 am
Pictures of the PCN
(https://i.imgur.com/YJNQ4Qy.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/m7HMWaK.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/aJDmHzU.png)

Signage at the site, from Google Street View:
(https://i.imgur.com/yPKsb8X.png)

The problem I had is that it doesn't accept cards and I couldn't download the parking App despite numerous attempts

The site is also very tight to manoeuvre with one way in and one way out, which added to my time:
(https://i.imgur.com/DPCIznr.png)
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: mickR on January 14, 2025, 09:49:10 pm
What would my next steps be?
READ THIS FIRST - **BEFORE POSTING YOUR CASE!**, 
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/

post up the pcn redact personal details leave in times.
use an external host
Title: Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: jfollows on January 14, 2025, 09:28:39 pm
Less than six minutes but more than five minutes?

Come on, please stop being vague!
Title: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
Post by: ngms27 on January 14, 2025, 07:28:03 pm
I entered the car park, parked up and looked at the signage.

I tried to download a required app and it wouldn't download. After several attempts I gave up and decided to move to a different carpark.

Time of entry to exit of the car park was less than 6 minutes.

I've been issued with a PCN demanding £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.

What would my next steps be?