Free Traffic Legal Advice

DCB Legal has now reached out to me via email from my submitted defence
"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."

They have attached a N180 form to the email.

Please advise should I consider mediation with them or just let it roll to a hearing?

The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest
belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse
statement of case. The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach
allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the
Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.
2. The defendant has a right under the lease to park the vehicle at the designated space,
which is registered to that location as the same as the vehicle. The permit was in the
vehicle at all times and the defendant had shown it to an operative from the
unregulated private parking company at the time of issuing the fine.However, the
evidence provided in person was refused and words of effect was said by the
operative “GO TO YOUR MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND THEY WILL REMOVE THE
TICKET” Which was unsuccessful as the management company refused to be
involved in any of the dealings between the defendant and claimant.
3. The signage is not fully clear at the car park as it is above every second space and not
directly above the parking space in question. As a defendant does not know the lease
agreements of other users the signage can be easily interpreted that above the spaces
where the signage positioned are under different agreement than the space involved in
the dispute. Furthermore, there are no signs displayed at the entrance of the car park,
only occasionally space along every second parking space.

The defendant resides at the building complex with the leaseholder of the car park space. The defendant had not displayed the permit in the windscreen by mistake as returned home after an extended shift at work and due to sheer physical tiredness had failed to place it on the dash of the vehicle, even though the permit was held in the vehicle. The defendant and the leaseholder have mutual interest in the vehicle and sole users of the space.  On the day of the issue of the fine the keeper of the vehicle saw the agent issue the ticket by taking the pictures of the vehicle, where it was confirmed to the agent in person that the vehicle is allowed to be parked at the location by showing the permit. However, the proof in person was denied with the only advice given by the agent in words of effect “GO SPEAK TO YOUR MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND THEY WILL REMOVE THE TICKET”. The vehicle is registered to the same address as the car park space is owned. In result, it would have been easily cross checked by the NPC LTD that the vehicle had the rights of the use of the space prior to commencing any further proceedings. Upon these points being raised to NPC LTD they decided that those points were insufficient.  Furthermore, the PCN was issued in a residential site where the leaseholder of the space has the deed for the parking space 3.59 as allocated by the Landlord as per the deed First Schedule paragraph 9 “The (exclusive) right to park one private motor vehicle in the parking areas in such parking space as the landlord may from time to time designate and notify the Tenant in writing subject to the display of a current valid parking permit issued by the Landlord or the Management Company AND the Landlord hereby notifies the Tenant that the initial parking space shall be the Initial Parking Space herein before defined.” The deed also sets out the right of Quiet Enjoyment - peaceably hold and enjoy the Premises during the term without any lawful interruption by the Landlord or any person lawfully or in trust for the Landlord. Furthermore, the signage at the car park is above every second space and not directly above the space in question. As a defendant does not know the deed agreements of other users can be easily interpreted that above the spaces where the signage positioned are under different agreement than the space in question.
The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:
a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and
'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines


This is what I have compiled together. Please advise if you believe any edition should be changed.

There is no suggestion that I can see that, aside from displaying a permit supplied by the landlord, that you are liable to a charge from a third party not connected to the lease.

What is the date of issue of the claim form (N1SDT)? Have you submitted the AoS? If so, on what date? Your MCOL history will tell you.

Please show us the PoC. That is what you are responding to and they are almost always woefully inadequate and there may be something you can add to your defence that could get the case thrown out at allocation stage.

Which roboclaim solicitor are NPC using or have they filed the claim themselves?

Once you have answered the above questions, we can advise further and provide a template for your defence. Whatever you do, DO NOT file your defence using the MCOL portal. You will file your defence as a PDF attachment in an email to the CNBC.

Edited to add: The NtK you have shown in your Google Docs folder has your VRM and the PCN number showing. I have managed to use that info to log into the NPC website as though to appeal and I can see a document on their website that contains you name and your email address. I suggest you immediately redact the photo of the NtK to remove the VRM and PCN numbers as anyone will ill intent could cause your grief.

N1SDT issued on the 03/05/2024, I have not submitted any response to it as of yet.

I have added the pictures of the DCBL contact letter and Independent appeal service denial outcome reasoning.

They are using DCBL (Direct Collection Bailiffs LTD)

For whatever reason I am unable to find the claim on MCOL as it is saying the number is invalid. Edit: Figured it out the only communication is: A claim was issued against you on 03/05/2024.