Free Traffic Legal Advice

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.

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]."

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

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:

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.

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.