Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: gf4444 on December 29, 2025, 10:22:29 pm
-
We definitely need to see the two PCNs to give proper advice.
Most likely, ECP PCNs are not PoFA compliant so you cannot be pursued as keeper under PoFA.
Hopefully they have no idea who the driver was.
They have no idea who the driver was however the problem is that the PCNs were never received as they were sent to the previous address for the registered keeper. The first time the registered keeper knew anything about it was when the initial Notice of Debt recovery came through. Since then, the registered address has been updated.
-
We definitely need to see the two PCNs to give proper advice.
Most likely, ECP PCNs are not PoFA compliant so you cannot be pursued as keeper under PoFA.
Hopefully they have no idea who the driver was.
-
It's the std POC from DCBL, so the std defence as posted by b789 should be applicable. Check that it is consistent with your claim.
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.
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.
-
Hi, sorry to bump this but if anyone can help it would be much appreciated.
Thanks
-
N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC now received (2 links to the same file, in case one doesn't work) -
https://postimg.cc/JDPKp7dc
(https://postimg.cc/JDPKp7dc)
https://ibb.co/vxnrxFbx (https://ibb.co/vxnrxFbx)
We'd really appreciate what to do next now that we're at this stage. Thank you.
-
A new LoC has been received as it turns out that they're pursuing two claims which explains why it seemed like we were receiving Final Reminders before a Notice of Debt Recovery. We didn't notice that the reference numbers on those letters were different until this LoC was received which bundles the cost and references together.
New LoC - https://ibb.co/tpp35L6T (https://ibb.co/tpp35L6T)
-
Letter of claim received today along with the 3rd or 4th Final Reminder which was dated after the LoC.
"Final" Reminder - https://ibb.co/cjV5HdY (https://ibb.co/cjV5HdY)
LoC - https://ibb.co/V8cG1Tj (https://ibb.co/V8cG1Tj)
I guess that it's now just a case of waiting for the N1SDT now?
Thanks.
-
Yes. You should always reference any PCN and your VRM.
-
Luckily for you, this is just ECP and I can assure you with greater that 99.9% certainty that if you follow the advice you receive here, you will not be paying a penny to ECP.
Whilst you have now updated your V5C, that does not solve the issue that ECP now hold two possible addresses for you. This WILL end up being a county court claim and you do not want a claim going to the wrong address and not being responded to.
The first thing you MUST do immediately, is send the ECP Data Protection Officer (DPO) a Data Rectification Notice (DRN) which instructs them to update their records with your (the Keepers) current address for service and to erase all other addresses they ay hold. The highlighted words are there for a reason, so use them.
You can safely ignore any debt recovery letters from DCBL or any other powerless debt collector. They are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver. All they can do is try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
You will eventually receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB Legal (not DCBL). When you do, let us know. Eventually, you will receive an actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC, which you will show us, only redacting your personal details. Leave the issue date visible and the Particulars of Claim (PoC). We will give you the advice on how to defend it with a template defence.
Eventually, the claim will either be struck out or discontinued just before they have to pay the £27 trial fee.
There are countless ECP PCNs being discussed on the forum and every one is advised the same. As long as the claim is defended, they all end up struck out or discontinued. Search the forum for them to see how they are handled and what happens when.
Thank you, that's incredibly useful. When we email the DPO, should we reference the PCN # for them to update their records on and/or the vehicle registration? I just want to make sure that we're doing the correct action first off rather than them having any come back.
Thanks.
-
Luckily for you, this is just ECP and I can assure you with greater that 99.9% certainty that if you follow the advice you receive here, you will not be paying a penny to ECP.
Whilst you have now updated your V5C, that does not solve the issue that ECP now hold two possible addresses for you. This WILL end up being a county court claim and you do not want a claim going to the wrong address and not being responded to.
The first thing you MUST do immediately, is send the ECP Data Protection Officer (DPO) a Data Rectification Notice (DRN) which instructs them to update their records with your (the Keepers) current address for service and to erase all other addresses they ay hold. The highlighted words are there for a reason, so use them.
You can safely ignore any debt recovery letters from DCBL or any other powerless debt collector. They are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver. All they can do is try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
You will eventually receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB Legal (not DCBL). When you do, let us know. Eventually, you will receive an actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC, which you will show us, only redacting your personal details. Leave the issue date visible and the Particulars of Claim (PoC). We will give you the advice on how to defend it with a template defence.
Eventually, the claim will either be struck out or discontinued just before they have to pay the £27 trial fee.
There are countless ECP PCNs being discussed on the forum and every one is advised the same. As long as the claim is defended, they all end up struck out or discontinued. Search the forum for them to see how they are handled and what happens when.
-
We received this letter last week which is the first notification of an issue. We've discovered that the V5C wasn't updated when we moved house which explains why the original letters weren't received (it's now been changed), my wife is the registered keeper.
We don't have the email receipt from the parking but can see on the credit card statement that parking was paid for on that date.
The car park is here - https://maps.app.goo.gl/CkLmb3FUtTJfZTF59
Letter is here - https://ibb.co/q3vsRrmt
Any help with this is gratefully received.