All as expected and boilerplate. Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
With an issue date of 22nd April, you have until 4pm on Monday 12th May to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 27th May to submit 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
Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order that goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.
When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF attachment and send as an attachment in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of UK Parking Control Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim 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:
Draft Order for the defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0)
Where is the image of the original NtK?
This wording is problematic:
Following that online appeal to UKPC I expected a some sort of letter to be sent to me and there was nothing at all. I think it was not until 3rd October when I started receiving letters from DCBL that I understood that the original appeal was not considered at all.
But your appeal was considered. You clearly received an appeal rejection from UKPC and a POPLA code. What else were you "expecting" to receive if you didn't appeal to POPLA?
Whilst it is very unlikely that this will ever get as far as a hearing because the MO of DCB Legal is to discontinue any claims as long as they are defended, we need to consider any procedural weaknesses.
1. The Appeal Rejection Letter Acts as a Demand for Payment
• The driver voluntarily appealed, admitting they were the driver.
• UKPC responded directly to the driver, rejecting the appeal and giving the options:
• Pay the charge, or;
• Appeal to POPLA.
• This serves the same function as a PCN—it informs the driver of their liability and next steps.
2. No Legal Requirement to Reissue a PCN in the Driver’s Name
• Since the driver identified themselves and engaged with the process, UKPC was not required to send a new PCN.
• Instead, the rejection letter effectively took the place of a formal PCN in this case.
• The driver had the chance to appeal to POPLA but chose not to, meaning they exhausted their internal appeals.
3. Procedural Flaw Argument Is Weakened
• Because the driver received the rejection letter directly, they were aware of the charge and had the same opportunities as if a PCN had been reissued.
• While UKPC's failure to reissue a PCN is unusual, it does not significantly disadvantage the driver because:
• They had notice of the charge.
• They had a chance to appeal.
• They chose not to escalate to POPLA.
• This weakens any procedural unfairness argument.
4. Impact on Any Future Legal Proceedings
• When UKPC issues a court claim through DCB Legal, the driver cannot argue they were unaware of the charge since they received an appeal rejection.
• However, they can still challenge the substance of the claim, including:
• Whether the charge was properly issued.
• Whether UKPC complied with the Private Parking Code of Practice.
•The fairness and proportionality of the charge.
So, for now, respond to the LoC by emailing info@dcblegal.co.uk and also CC in yourself the following:
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 20th January 2025
I refer to your Letter of Claim.
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I formally request that any other addresses you hold with regards to the PCN be erased from your records to ensure compliance with your UK GDPR obligations under the Data Protection Act 2018.
[current postal address]
Please note that the alleged debt is fully disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.
The driver made a reasonable adjustment to assist a passenger with mobility difficulties in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. The minor encroachment into a non-adjoining cross-hatched area was necessary for the disabled passenger to exit and re-enter the vehicle.
Under the PAP, I require an answer to the following questions regarding procedural fairness and the Equality Act 2010:
• Why did your client fail to consider this as a mitigating factor before rejecting the appeal?
• Under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010, service providers must make reasonable adjustments—why did your client not exercise discretion in this case?
If this matter proceeds to court, I will invite the court to assess whether your client’s refusal to consider a reasonable adjustment amounts to indirect discrimination under Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010.
I also note that the sum claimed has been artificially inflated by an excessive and unjustifiable amount. All charges and fees must be clearly justified and proportionate.
Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAP), I also require specific answers to the following questions:
1. Debt Recovery & Additional Charges• Does the additional £70 represent what you describe as a "Debt Recovery" fee?
• If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT?
• If inclusive, why am I – as the alleged debtor – being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability?
2. Legal Basis for the Alleged Charge• Is the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN) being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or is it being pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
• If it is being claimed as consideration for a contractual service (i.e., a parking fee), then VAT must be applied and accounted for. Please confirm whether your client has declared this to HMRC.
I caution you against vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. If your client is claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, this raises serious concerns about compliance with HMRC regulations and financial fairness under the PPSCoP.
I strongly advise your client to cease and desist from pursuing this matter. Should this proceed to court:
• These issues will be brought to the court’s attention.
• A robust defence will be filed, challenging the enforceability of this charge.
• I will consider applying for unreasonable costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) if your client proceeds with a legally unsound claim.
I expect a full response to these points in compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
Yours faithfully,
[YOUR NAME]
Welcome. If only you hadn't blabbed the drivers identity, this could have been resolved in an easier manner. Never mind, it is still going to be dealt with. No one who is here receiving advice and following it pays a penny to UKPC.
Was the original Parking Charge Notice issued as windscreen Notice to Driver (NtD) or as a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK). I would need to see the original NtD or NtK. Reminders are of no use. Make sure that ALL dates and times are not redacted.
Did you appeal to POPLA? If so, what exactly did you put in that appeal?
When you say the initial appeal was made by you, as the driver, at some point before this, did the Registered Keeper (RK) transfer liability to you as the driver? If not, I am surprised that they accepted any appeal that wasn't from the named Keeper.
You mention that the passenger had "mobility issues". Did the passenger have a blue badge? Are the mobility issues you mention due to "protected characteristics" according to the Equality Act 2010?
1. Protected Characteristic – Disability is one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
2. Reasonable Adjustments – Businesses, service providers, and landowners have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals, which can include:
• Allowing extra time for parking if the person requires longer to get in and out of the vehicle or access services.
• Providing wider parking spaces or step-free access.
• Adjusting policies to accommodate disabled people.
3. Indirect Discrimination – If a parking operator or landowner enforces rigid time limits without considering the needs of disabled individuals, it may constitute indirect discrimination under Section 19 of the Act.
4. Public & Private Land – While the Act applies to public bodies, it also applies to private companies offering services to the public, such as private parking operators.
How This Applies to Parking:
• If a disabled driver or passenger needs extra time due to their condition, a rigid enforcement of time limits could be unlawful.
• If a parking operator refuses to consider an appeal from a disabled person who overstayed due to their mobility issues, they may be in breach of the Act.
• Parking operators should allow reasonable adjustments, such as extra time for disabled individuals, even if they do not display a Blue Badge (as the Act protects disabled people regardless of the badge scheme).
Before we go on with advice on how to respond to the Letter of Claim (LoC), please answer the questions I have asked.