Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Anon777 on March 23, 2025, 01:30:20 pm

Title: Re: DCBLegal - Unpaid parking charge £170 - LoC - HM Courts & Tribunal
Post by: b789 on March 23, 2025, 08:35:08 pm
It is not practically or procedurally possible under current DVLA processes for an operator to "issue" a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) on the same calendar day as the alleged contravention, given the steps involved: detecting the contravention, applying to the DVLA, receiving keeper data, and then issuing the NtK.

Under the current arrangement, private parking operators must apply to the DVLA (usually via electronic KADOE system) for the keeper’s data. The DVLA does not provide real-time data. Even electronic requests take at least 24–48 hours, typically longer on weekends or public holidays.

Operators must first capture the vehicle registration, log the contravention, and then submit the request. The DVLA must then process and return the keeper details. Therefore, no operator can lawfully or feasibly obtain the keeper's name and address on the same day as the alleged contravention.

A postal NtK must include the name and address of the registered keeper (PoFA Sch. 4, para 9(2)(a)), the date of the alleged contravention and date of issue of the notice (among other details). Without the DVLA data, a compliant NtK cannot be created or issued.

The DVLA KADOE contract requires operators to retain evidence of the request and its timing, and data access must only be for specific, logged events. Operators who claim to issue an NtK on the same day as the contravention would have to prove how they obtained DVLA data instantly and prove that the NtK was genuinely issued after receiving that data. They cannot.

The only way for a PCN issue date to be the same date as the alleged contravention date is if the PCN is issued as a windscreen Notice to Driver (NtD). There is nothing in PoFA or any other legislation that mentions the difference between the "issue" date of a PCN and the alleged contravention date.

You're quite right to highlight Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) as the relevant statutory provision, because that is the only part of PoFA that indirectly addresses the timing of when a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) may be issued following a contravention where no Notice to Driver (NtD) was served. The NtK must be delivered to the keeper within 14 days of the alleged contravention (not issued or dated, but delivered).

However, the timing of obtaining the keeper’s data (as governed by the DVLA's processes and the KADOE contract) makes it impossible in practice to obtain keeper data and issue a postal NtK on the same day as the contravention.

Although not part of PoFA, the DVLA’s KADOE contract sets out that operators must have “reasonable cause” to request keeper data and data must relate to a specific contravention that has already occurred, and data requests must be logged and retrievable for audit purposes.

In DCB Legal issued claims, Sarah Ensall, the "Head of Legal" at that firm, uses a boilerplate to complete the PoC. She and most of the other incompetents at that firm of bulk litigators do not know how to distinguish between the date of the alleged contravention and the date the PCN was actually "issued".

What the "issue" date in the PoC refers to is actually the date of the alleged contravention, not the actual "issue" date of the PCN. The alleged "issue" date in your PoC does not match up with the "issue" date of what you think is the PCN they are pursuing so you have even more reason to doubt the PoC are even truthful.

So, to summarise your original question, there is no single line in PoFA that expressly prohibits a postal NtK being issued on the same day as a contravention. However, Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the notice to include the name and address of the keeper, which can only be obtained from the DVLA after the contravention occurs. Paragraph 9(5) sets the 14-day delivery deadline. Since DVLA data is not provided instantly, it is functionally impossible to comply with these requirements and issue a lawful NtK on the same day as the parking event. Any such NtK would either be backdated or sent without lawful access to keeper data.

Title: Re: DCBLegal - Unpaid parking charge £170 - LoC - HM Courts & Tribunal
Post by: Anon777 on March 23, 2025, 06:58:26 pm
All understood and defence has been submitted for RK just now.


Quote
Is the date that the PCN was issued correct? Remember that a PCN, unless it is a windscreen Notice to Driver (NtD) cannot be issued on the same date that the alleged contravention occurred.

The NTK says PCN was issued on 04/09/2024 while the PoC says PCN was issued on 21/08/2024 to the contrary. NTK shows the alleged contravention occurred on 21/08/2024.

So as per PoC, the PCN was issued on the same day as alleged contravention. To confirm, it was an NtK (not NtD).

For myself and any others who may be reading or using a search engine scraping these forums, can you kindly mention which sections/paragraphs of law/practice state that the NtK can't be issued on the same day as the PCN? I'm no expert but I've had a look and it appears to be POFA 2012 schedule 4 P9(5)? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/paragraph/9

Quote
The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

Thanks in advance

We'll leave it at that for now. Will update when RK hears something back.
Title: Re: DCBLegal - Unpaid parking charge £170 - LoC - HM Courts & Tribunal
Post by: b789 on March 23, 2025, 05:45:42 pm
No. The "other" cases referred to are used in a claim where CPR 16.4(1)(a) has not been complied with. In your case, CPR 16.4(1)(a) has partially but not adequately been complied with.

The PoC in this case give a "reason" which partially complies with CPR 16.4(1)(a) but not adequately so. If you look at the "reason" in the one you linked to, it just states that it is a breach of the terms & conditions. That does not comply at all with CPR 16.4(1)(a).

CPR 16.4(1)(a) states that the PoC MUST include a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies. Simply stating that the only fact is a breach of the terms and conditions does not satisfy that requirement, concisely or otherwise. However, in your case, the reason given is "parked for longer than the time permitted". This is too concise and therefore does not adequately state the facts as required.

Either way, the PoC are required to provide all the information needed to submit a defence. Look at it from this point of view... assume you had no prior knowledge of the outstanding PCN and alleged debt. Would you be able to put together enough information from those PoC to produce a valid defence? If the answer is yes, then you can try a different approach.

Is the date that the PCN was issued correct? Remember that a PCN, unless it is a windscreen Notice to Driver (NtD) cannot be issued on the same date that the alleged contravention occurred.

Is the "contract' referred to in the PoC detailed? What was the actual term of the contract that it is alleged that you breached? What was the actual time that you were permitted to park there? How was that term breached?

CPR PD 16(7.5) states:

Quote
7.5 Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done.

Do the PoC adequately specify the conduct relied on, by whom and when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done? No they don't.

Do the PoC state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on? No they don't.

Do the PoC 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? No they don't.

Do the PoC state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges? For example, from what date has any statutory interest been calculated? It cannot be calculated from the issue date of the PCN.

Do the PoC state how much of the sum claimed is the original charge and how much is damages or debt recovery? No they don't.

Are they suing you as the driver or as the Keeper? Without specifying one, or the other and if necessary both, they have not provided enough specificity. They can only sue you as one or the other and if so, they must specify which and why. They haven't

They could have simply stated in the PoC that further more detailed PoC will follow within 14 days but they have chosen not to do this.

The claim is deficient and should be struck out. If it isn't, then they will discontinue anyway as that is the M.O. of DCB Legal claims. I have no doubt about that.
Title: Re: DCBLegal - Unpaid parking charge £170 - LoC - HM Courts & Tribunal
Post by: Anon777 on March 23, 2025, 05:12:54 pm
I have everything ready to send but noticed there is no reference to the 'other' case in the template or draft you kindly provided. Is it necessary that the other case to which I refer is not actually referenced?

I ask because as per your response 3 days ago in https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/dcb-legalparkingeye-claim-form-received/ the cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30] are referenced and worded slightly different.

Once confirmed, I'll re-bundle everything and send off.

Thanks again.
Title: Re: DCBLegal - Unpaid parking charge £170 - LoC - HM Courts & Tribunal
Post by: b789 on March 23, 2025, 04:22:44 pm
It's OK. The Claim Form show that the Claimant is Britannia Parking Group Ltd.

As you've submitted your AOS, you now have until 4pm on Monday 14th April to submit your defence.

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 Britannia Parking Group Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."

Quote
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Britannia Parking Group 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)
Title: Re: DCBLegal - Unpaid parking charge £170 - LoC - HM Courts & Tribunal
Post by: Anon777 on March 23, 2025, 04:06:43 pm
Thanks for your reply b789.

You're right, it is just easier for me to show the PoC: https://imgur.com/a/pcn-u9XyQLN

RK submitted AoS through MCOL.

NTK shows it was from 'Britannia Parking'. The footer of NTK says "Britannia Parking is a Registered Trading Name of Britannia Parking Group Limited and any of its wholly owned subsidiaries".

If you want to see NTK, will upload also.
Title: Re: DCBLegal - Unpaid parking charge £170 - LoC - HM Courts & Tribunal
Post by: b789 on March 23, 2025, 02:30:40 pm
DCB Legal is NOT the Claimant. It is one of the Britannia group of companies that is the Claimant. Is it Britannia Parking Services Ltd, Britannia Parking Group Ltd or Britannia Parking Ltd?

Please don't paraphrase the Particulars of Claim (PoC). We need to see precisely the wording used.

It is best that you simply show the N1SDT Claim Form and just redact your personal info, the claim number and the MCOL password.

How did you submit the AoS? through MCOL, email or post?

With an issue date of 11th March, you have until 4pm on Monday 31st March to submit your defence. As you have submitted an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) and they receive it before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 14th April to submit your defence.

Once you have clarified who the Claimant is and shown us the PoC, we can suggest a suitable defence.

One thing is for sure, any claim issued by DCB Legal will be discontinued before any hearing fee has to be paid as long as it is defended.
Title: DCBLegal - Unpaid parking charge £170 - LoC - HM Courts & Tribunal
Post by: Anon777 on March 23, 2025, 01:30:20 pm
Hi,

I'm looking for advice.

I'll talk in third person to protect any liability.

The registered keeper (RK) of a vehicle has received a claim form from HM Courts and DCBLegal are the claimant for an unpaid parking charge of £170 for an alleged parking contravention for parking longer than the maximum time permitted. Their client is Britannia Parking Ltd (BPL).

The date of the claim to the court was 11/03/2025 and the registered keeper has, as of today, 23/03/2025, submitted their AoS.

A few particulars that may be of relevance in my request for advice here, is that:

1. The RK of said vehicle wasn't living at said vehicle’s registered address when the NTK was issued to the RK. The RK can evidence this in the form of:

For these reasons, correspondence from DCBLegal, DCBL and Britannia Parking Ltd was missed by the RK.

I know the RK of the vehicle is required to keep the DVLA updated for address changes, however as noted in https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-changed-address, it is quoted by the DVLA that “You do not need to tell us if you move temporarily (for example you’re living away at university) if we can still contact you at your permanent address.”. As the RK believed their address change was temporary, there was no need for the RK to inform the DVLA of their address change. NTKs were sent to the RK however it was of no fault of the RK that they didn’t receive them.

2. The photographic evidence on the NTK shows digitally altered images in the form of black boxes covering the driver’s identity and cropping of a higher resolution image of the vehicle’s number plate so it fits within the frame of the image. I think this breaches BPA’s CoP 21.5(a): “All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.”.

3. The NTK shows the entry and exit times but does not show the duration the vehicle parked for, nor showing it actually parked anywhere.

4. In DCBLegal’s particulars of claim it says:


5. There is no option to pay for any length of stay at this car park.

The LoC was sent to the RK on 06/02/2025 and the RK responded to info@decblegal.co.uk on 6 March 2025, within the 30-day time limit allowed for replying to an LoC. In the email the RK mentioned that they weren’t at the address of the registered vehicle when DCBLegal and their client sent correspondence to the RK and asked for DCBLegal to go back to their client to start the process again (no driver liability admitted). The RK has so far not received a human response to their email however a claim has clearly been pursued in the courts against the RK.

Hopefully that’s enough information for someone to help the RK with a list of arguments for their defence which, 28 days from 11/03/2025, would allow them until 08/04/2025 to do.

Happy to provide pictures of NTK and HM courts claim against RK to any trusted member of the forum. Hopefully everyone can understand reasons for not doing so just yet.

Would greatly appreciate some advice.

Thanks