Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: azy2k9 on November 22, 2025, 09:44:48 pm
-
Nothing to worry about.
You've replied to the LoC and clearly presented your legal position.
It is NOT your job to get the claimant's evidence in order.
In fact, don't write anything in reply - let them issue Court proceedings and then totally demonstrate their incompetence in this matter.
Let's hope that Ayanda Dube continues their involvement in this case since they are clearly inept.
-
Hey Guys,
So I've had a reply from DCB Legal to the LOC appeal I submitted following Intercity125's template... it's completely incorrect though?
The reply is as follows:
Dear <REDACATED>,
We write in response to your correspondence received in our office dated 23 March 2026
We now respond to the same as follows.
When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract and agreeing to the terms by parking and staying on the site. Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract.
While we acknowledge that you are disputing the amount owed, the parking charge was issued because insufficient payment was made for the duration of your stay. Our records show that the vehicle remained on site for 6 hours and 16 minutes, for which the required payment was £3.20. However, the screenshot you have provided indicates that you selected a stay of only 2 hours on the payment system, which does not correspond with the actual duration parked. You subsequently appealed this charge with our client, and the appeal was rejected on the grounds that the terms and conditions of parking were breached.
Our Client will ensure that there are signs clearly displayed on the land, outlining the terms of the parking. These will generally be displayed at the entrance and exit of the car park, as well as being positioned at various points throughout the land.
We confirm that despite your latest correspondence, our position remains as previously advised. As such, should our client instruct us to proceed with further legal action, we reserve the right to do so without any further reference to you. If you are at all unsure of your legal position, we recommend that you seek your own independent legal advice.
You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment of £170.00. Failure to make payment may result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference.
Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -
• Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
• Sort Code: 20-24-09
• Account Number: 60964441
You must quote the correct case reference (<REDACATED>) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.
We would ask that you kindly furnish us with your most up to date telephone number and email address, this can be emailed to us atinfo@dcblegal.co.uk.
Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to make payment over the telephone or online at https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.
Kind Regards,
Ayanda Dube
DCB Legal Ltd
Tel: 0203 434 0433 | DX 23457 Runcorn
This doesn't make any sense. In their message they state the screenshot you have provided indicates that you selected a stay of only 2 hours on the payment system
... I never uploaded any evidence to DCB legal, however what they are referring to is, in the original PCN appeal to EuroCarParks, I attached this video showing the app failed and would not allow me to extend my session (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1krdei884a4UQ4LxUjbbarStpfTAh_MOZ/view), in the video you can see I try to extend the session by 2 hours.
When EuroCarParks rejected my original appeal they did so with this reply (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hsnYkBJcmdwwe0QuProizfHaBeY0zDnv/view), it clearly states I was parked there for 6 hours 16 minutes and I also have this receipt from the app (https://drive.google.com/file/d/15uxJyIsw9sqjlNzdajLDTBMT8xo8OKAJ/view) as evidence... they have blatantly just ignored everything in the appeal I send them and have failed to review any of the documents in this case properly.
What should I reply with?
Email Received: 02/04/2026
30 day reply deadline date: 02/05/2026
-
This is only at the LoC stage so I would not worry about anything more at the time being.
Other evidence can be introduced if and when they issue a claim.
I'll eat my hat if they ever take this to a hearing.
-
I do actually have a screen recording of the app failing to allow the driver to extend the parking session. The time of the recording is 16:22, but it had previously failed multiple times before the driver had thought of screen recording the failure for evidence.
Evidence of RingGo app failing to let the driver extend the parking session (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1krdei884a4UQ4LxUjbbarStpfTAh_MOZ/view?usp=sharing)
It should be noted... the driver was pregnant (around 4-5 month) but was already struggling with pains and starting to waddle around due to her size. This was documented in the original appeal but completely dismissed by EuroCarParks. So the time taken for the driver to get from her place of work back to the car, whilst being pregnant, to move it because the RingGo app failed took her a little while.
She has evidence to show that she has used this car park almost daily before and after this incident and has never had an issues with paying for parking or extending the session whenever the parking is about to run over etc... this was a one off that, completely out of her control due to an app failure
-
I don't think your argument about grace periods is very solid to be honest and not applicable in this case as the OP stayed 11 minutes beyond the end of the parking session anyway. The PPC will argue you need to purchase enough time to cover the time between entering and exiting. That's how ANPR enforcement works. If you can successfully argue that entrance and exit times aren't applicable, only the unknown period of actual parking you FUBAR the entire industry overnight. What's to stop a motorist entering a car park, parking, wandering into town, paying for parking an hour after parking. The only line of reasonable defence I can see is the Ringo receipt stating a session period. That is misleading, it should have merely stated the duration purchased.
If you have evidence the app malfunctioned preventing you from extending your parking I'd use that as clear defence, frustration of contract. Were there any other payment options you could have used, payment machines for example.
I disagree.
Firstly, the defendant has demonstrated that the driver acted reasonably in all instances - they entered the car park, parked up and paid - all done in quick succession and well within reasonable time based on the circumstances.
Secondly, if the parking operator wanted to base it's charges on 'entry time' then it could easily do that using the ANPR data which was gathered at entry - it's a the operator's commercial choice not to do that - that is not the fault of the defendant and the defendant cannot be made liable due to the inadequacies of the parking operators methods of operation.
Thirdly, this is a consumer contract dispute and , as such, the confirmation of contract will be the centre-point of the case and therefore undefeatable by the Claimant - the contents of the established contract will dictate the timings and not other implied interpretations.
Fourthly, how 'ANPR enforcement works' is irrelevant if the parking operator allows a contract to be formed which is not based on the precise entry time - the law does not exist to make ANPR enforcement workable - ANPR enforcement is demonstrably unreliable when entry / exit times are very tight (vs the parking time purchased) since entry and exit times don't actually demonstrate the exact period of parking.
Fifthly, de minimis principle - the alleged contravention period is ridiculously tiny - any claim would immediately represent unreasonable conduct by the Claimant.
-
What's to stop a motorist entering a car park, parking, wandering into town, paying for parking an hour after parking.
I'd like to hold out enough faith in the English County Court system to hope that at least some judges could see a material difference between someone entering a car park, purchasing parking 5 minutes later, and accepting the 'expiry time' on the payment app in good faith, versus someone paying for parking an hour later and trying to argue that their parking session only started when they paid.
-
I don't think your argument about grace periods is very solid to be honest and not applicable in this case as the OP stayed 11 minutes beyond the end of the parking session anyway. The PPC will argue you need to purchase enough time to cover the time between entering and exiting. That's how ANPR enforcement works. If you can successfully argue that entrance and exit times aren't applicable, only the unknown period of actual parking you FUBAR the entire industry overnight. What's to stop a motorist entering a car park, parking, wandering into town, paying for parking an hour after parking. The only line of reasonable defence I can see is the Ringo receipt stating a session period. That is misleading, it should have merely stated the duration purchased.
If you have evidence the app malfunctioned preventing you from extending your parking I'd use that as clear defence, frustration of contract. Were there any other payment options you could have used, payment machines for example.
-
You could reply to the letter of claim with the following;
To whom it may concern.
I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question and I write in that capacity.
Liability for the debt is robustly refuted and no monies are owned by myself to your parking operator client.
For the purposes of clarity (and in order to avoid a further waste of time and costs) I will make the following points;
That I understand the driver entered your client's car park and promptly found a suitable bay and parked up.
That the driver then, immediately, whilst sat in the vehicle, using your client's approved 'phone app', examined the available parking options.
That the driver then selected the advertised option of '6 hours parking' at a total cost of £3.40p.
That the driver promptly made payment within the 'app' and was immediately issued with a confirmation of contract which specifically set out the terms of the parking session which was purchased.
That the confirmation of contract confirms that a 6 hour session was offered by your client and subsequently purchased at 10.17am on the date in question.
That the same confirmation of contract confirms that the expiry of the session was 4.17pm on the same date.
That the operators Code of Practice states that drivers be afforded a minimum of 10 minutes grace period at the end of a parking session.
That with the 'grace period' the parking session should end by 4.27pm.
That your operators own evidence shows the vehicle leaving their managed land at 4.28pm.
That it is quite conceivable that the actual parking session finished by 4.27pm since the ANPR cameras at the entrance / exit do not consider the time taken to reach the exit (from the parking bay) after a parking session has finished.
That whilst the ANPR method of establishing 'time on site' may be relied upon in the majority of situations, the ANPR method has a clear and demonstrable inherent weakness when the timings of parking sessions become extremely tight - this is one such instance.
I feel that this robustly sets out the true legal position which relates to this dispute.
Based on the above, liability is firmly denied.
Best wishes,
xxxxx xxxxxxxx
-
Awesome, thank you so much!
-
Nothing to worry about.
I'll jot something down later.
You do not need to worry about jumping through THEIR hoops.
They are trying to condition you in to thinking that they are in charge and you are the subordinate.
-
Bumping this, just concious the deadline to respond to this is another 12 days i think (23rd March)
-
What are my next steps then? Does the receipt help? It does seem to me like i missed the grace period by 1 minute unfortunately
-
Perfect.
-
The app had this receipt in there, it does show timestamps:
15/09/2025 10:17 AM - 15/09/2025 4:17 PM
6 hours duration
RingGo App Receipt (https://drive.google.com/file/d/15uxJyIsw9sqjlNzdajLDTBMT8xo8OKAJ/view?usp=sharing)
-
They say that the 'time in car park' was 6 hours 16 minutes - do you know what time you purchased your parking?
The Code of Practice allows 10 mins grace period at the end of the parking session.
If we can show that it took you a few mins to park and pay then we can demonstrate that the claim is for just a few minutes.
Update...
So I found it, you paid for 6 hours parking at 10.17 and were given an expiry time of 16.17 - the PCN shows you leaving at 16.28 which is 1 minute after the grace period.
Can you check your app to see if the booking evidences the expiry time of the time purchased?
-
Unfortunately yes, in my initial appeal i referred to myself paying for parking etc
-
Was the driver revealed in any appeal?
-
Any advice anyone? @jfollows @b789 maybe?
-
I have now received my Letter of Claim from DCB Legal as shown on the link below:
Letter of Claim (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q6_sdQvG6bo1iRykgoMxh3XnxjgDUOW9/view?usp=drivesdk)
What are my next steps?
-
Ignore DCBL.
Come back when you get a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal.
-
Hey all,
I’ve received this DCBL Legal letter of Final reminder
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u5YgKrJG579CbqPjqxFfc4B7b3MgOYn8/view?usp=drivesdk
Should the LOC letter have come before this or after? What are my next steps with this now?
-
Sounds like a plan, see you next year ;D
-
If you follow the advice you receive here, you will not pay a penny to ECP. However, you are in a process that will take 9-12+ months to complete.
I won’t go into all the detsil as you can do a simple forum search for “ECP” and see the process. In short, it will end up being a count court claim issued by DCB Legal and when defended using the template defence we provide, will either be struck out or discontinued.
I wouldn’t bother trying to appeal to POPLA and just ignore the subsequent debt recovery letters.
Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we can take it from there.
-
Hi, I had recieved a Notice to Keeper letter from EuroCarPark stating I have overstayed in the car park.
Key Details
Date I parked in the car park: 15/09/2025
Date of Notice to Keeper letter: 20/09/2025
Location: Crown Street - Bolton
Time in Car Park: 6hrs 16 minutes
Contravention: The P&D/permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking
Appeal to Notice to Keeper Date: 18/10/2025
Rejection Response to appeal: 12/11/2025
I purchased a 6 hour stay via the RingGo app. I was over by 16 minutes. The thing is, the app had glitched when I tried to extend my parking, it was allowing me to add more time but not taking me to the payment screen (i have a screen recording for the glitched app).
I made an appeal to EuroCarParks, unfortunetly I only found this forum afterwards and believe that when I made the appeal I referred to myself a lot for purchasing the parking and not being able to extend the parking because of the app glitch before I had to return to the my car and move it.
The appeal was rejected because while they accept I did purchase a 6hr parking ticket through the app I was only entitled to 6hrs. They also attatched a partial screenshot of others purchasing valid tickets via RingGo after I encountered an issue. They have now given me a unique popla code for further appeal.
Can someone please advise me on my next steps given I have not kept to the correct procedure of never admitting to being the driver?
Notice to keeper letter (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1voeWAV8fvalq2eb02rihvlMZ5XpbVyoC/view?usp=sharing)
The appeal rejection letter can be found here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hsnYkBJcmdwwe0QuProizfHaBeY0zDnv/view?usp=sharing)