3. Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - nikolaivisch

Pages: [1]
1
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN from I Park Services Mere Green, Sutton Coldfield
« on: November 05, 2025, 10:16:57 am »
Hi All

Response from DCB Legal below sent via email. Looks very generic.

“Good Morning

Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.

In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.

Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence.

If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not.

 

Kind Regards,

Litigation Support

DCB Legal Ltd”

2
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN from I Park Services Mere Green, Sutton Coldfield
« on: September 30, 2025, 09:53:29 pm »
Quote from: b789 on September 27, 2025, 04:47:30 pm
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide

I’ve managed to post the particulars to a third party site as per forum guidelines. Please find link below. Is your response still ok to use as a response?

https://ibb.co/1GZVkRnX

3
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN from I Park Services Mere Green, Sutton Coldfield
« on: September 27, 2025, 04:31:39 pm »
Quote from: b789 on September 27, 2025, 04:21:09 pm
It would help if you could show us the actual claim form with the Particulars of Claim (PoC) on them. Only redact your personal info, the claim number and the MCOL password. DO not redact any dates.

READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide

However, knowing that IPark Services usually use DCB Legal to issue their claims I will advise as follows:

With an issue date of 24th September you have until 4pm on Monday 13th October to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 27th 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.

I tried uploading the claim but could not find a way to upload the files which I previously could. when I select attachment and options there is no way to upload a file. Thanks for providing the instructions which I will follow, yes you are right it is DCB legal filing the claim on their behalf.

4
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN from I Park Services Mere Green, Sutton Coldfield
« on: September 27, 2025, 04:00:33 pm »
Hi All

I have received the claim from via HM Courts and Tribunals dated 24th September asking me to respond within 14 days. What are my next steps in terms of countering the claim and wording to use?

5
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN from I Park Services Mere Green, Sutton Coldfield
« on: August 19, 2025, 04:53:29 pm »
Hi All

DCB legal response to my counter claim as stated  above below. What are my next steps as the “evidence” provided is basically the same PCN notice issued with random pictures shown earlier in the thread.

Dear xxxx,

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office.

The parking charge has been issued due to parking without a valid pay and display (or prepay arrangement). The signs on site would have clearly outlined the terms and conditions of the site.

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.

The amount owed is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location to ensure compliance with the clearly displayed terms and conditions. However, in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis, it was found, both at County Court and Court of Appeal level, that appealing a Parking Charge on the basis that the amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss is, in fact, not a successful legal defence.

The Notice to Keeper was issued to you on 07/01/2025. A copy is attached. You were afforded the opportunity to; appeal the parking charge, transfer liability to the driver (if it was not you) or make payment. Neither a successful appeal, nor an adequate nomination were received, yet payment remains outstanding.

The Reminder Notice was issued to you on 11/02/2025. A copy is attached. This notice reiterated that payment was outstanding and confirmed that legal action may be taken, and additional costs incurred if the parking charge was not paid.

We note your comments made, however our Client had responded to your Appeal. A copy is attached.

If there are any documents or information that you have requested, but that are not attached, it is because we have deemed the request to be disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute. We respectfully draw your attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to act reasonably and proportionately.

You now have 30 days from the date of this email/letter to make payment of £160.00. Failure to make payment will 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 (XxxxxPS) 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.

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,
 
Xxxx


6
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN from I Park Services Mere Green, Sutton Coldfield
« on: July 13, 2025, 11:09:14 am »
Quote from: b789 on July 13, 2025, 10:42:10 am
You do not fill in any of the forms that come with the LoC. Bin them!

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.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C].

If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. The initial Notice to Keeper was not received, as I had moved address and the V5C logbook had not yet been updated with the DVLA at the time of the alleged contravention. As such, no PoFA-compliant NtK was served within the timeframes required by paragraph 9(5) of the Act. Even if your client were to issue or re-send a copy now, it would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to establish keeper liability.

As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)

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]

Thanks for the draft response. As I lodged an appeal before finding this website and subsequently admitting that I was the one driving the car does it change the content in the draft response you sent?

7
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN from I Park Services Mere Green, Sutton Coldfield
« on: July 13, 2025, 10:51:28 am »
Thanks for the draft response. As I lodged an appeal before finding this website and subsequently admitting that I was the one driving the car does it change the content in the draft response you sent?

8
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN from I Park Services Mere Green, Sutton Coldfield
« on: July 13, 2025, 10:48:01 am »
Letter of claim attached for reference as requested. I will respond to the claim as suggested. Thanks and fingers crossed!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

9
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN from I Park Services Mere Green, Sutton Coldfield
« on: July 13, 2025, 10:32:44 am »
Hi

I have now received a letter of claim from DCB legal limited. The later states that I should complete a reply form and financial statement. They have also given me the option of a dispute resolution call. What should I do next?

Kind regards

10
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN from I Park Services Mere Green, Sutton Coldfield
« on: January 16, 2025, 08:11:59 pm »
Thanks for the feedback. I’ll definitely take this one to the bitter end and update the thread when I receive the letter from DCB Legal.

11
Private parking tickets / PCN from I Park Services Mere Green, Sutton Coldfield
« on: January 14, 2025, 06:17:23 pm »
As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I have received a PCN from I Park Services dated 07/01/25 alleging that an unpaid parking charge is due.

The driver was in the parking lot for less than 2.5 mins in total based on the attached evidence provided by I Park and used this as a reason to reject the PCN in my appeal.

I have appealed through their web site and got the standard response to expect from these companies:

They have responded:
This appeal has been considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered and our records show that the PCN was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking.

They have suggested I appeal via IAS should I want to take this further. Is that advised? I note there is a separate post on this website for the exact same location.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

12
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN from I Park, Mere Green (Sutton Coldfield)
« on: January 11, 2025, 02:47:07 pm »
Quote from: DohRay on December 16, 2024, 01:45:50 pm
Many thanks for the clarifications.  I shall get the letter sent forthwith, and shall update you with any response that I receive.
Newbie here, I was searching the web and found this forum. I have the same issue you had at this same parking location. I was literally in there for less than 3 mins at night and they issue me with a parking charge. I have already appealed on their website and waiting for the standard response. The pictures seem to suggest I left the car but it was actually my wife that left the car while I remained in the driving seat with the engine on while she checked the parking fees before we decided to go elsewhere after our dinner reservation at the restaurant adjacent to it was cancelled. How can they charge one for a 2 mon period?

Pages: [1]