NPC Parking Charge - Myrtle Parade, Liverpool

[ntown]

Hello,

I started a thread in a different forum but would like to continue it here, since the responsiveness in the other forum dried up.

NPC Parking Charge - Myrtle Parade, Liverpool

I don't think there is anything to do until DCB Legal reply.

Thanks

[b789]

Welcome @ntown. I see you responded to the LoC with one of the responses I had suggested in a similar case. Once again, the ball is in their court and you now wait for their response.

I can assure you with greater than 99% certainty, they will issue a claim. When they do, we will give you the defence and eventually, the claim will be discontinued.

Come back and show us their response when it arrives.

In the meantime, just provide some continuity, could you complete the PCN details form here and post the summary that it produces. It is going to be the only way I can track every case:

PCN Details Form

[ntown]

This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by National Parking Control Group Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Thursday, 17 July 2025. The notice itself is dated Wednesday, 23 July 2025, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.

The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: Unsure. The location is stated as Myrtle Parade, L7 7AA.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates COMPLIANT: Likely PoFA timing compliant for paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Friday, 25 July 2025 (8 days after the alleged event).

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: Yes
- Letter of Claim: Yes
- County Court claim: No
- Letter of Claim responded to: Yes
- Letter of Claim source: Bulk litigation firm
- Letter of Claim firm: DCB Legal

Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):

INITIAL RESPONSE

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. NPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. NPC have no hope should you try to litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.


----
IAS APPEAL

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.

The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:

1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.

2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.

In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:

• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.

These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.

3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.

4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.

5. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)

6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.

If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.

In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.

---
IAS RESPONSE TO OPERATOR PRIMA FACIE

1. Driver identity is denied. The operator’s statement that the appellant was the driver is false. There has been no admission. Put to strict proof. If relying on PoFA, they must prove Schedule 4 compliance without presuming driver identity.

2. Failure to pay is not made out. The driver paid promptly and in good faith using the PayByPhone app, selecting the location from the in-app map at the place of parking. The operator’s “no payment” assertion appears to be based only on their own RingGo/machine records for this site. That does not disprove payment. The contemporaneous PayByPhone receipt and map-pin evidence directly rebut “failure to pay”. The burden of proof is on the operator.

3. Payment information must be clear and prominent at the point of payment (PPSCoP 6.2 and 6.3). Where an operator restricts accepted payment methods (for example, RingGo only, cash, a specific location code), that is a core term and, under 6.2 and 6.3, it must be unmissable and legible at the earliest practical point and at the payment point. The operator has produced only three unreadable photos and no dated site plan. They have not proved that any RingGo-only requirement and the correct location code were clearly communicated such that a reasonable driver would not be misled, particularly where a national app’s map shows coverage at the location. In those circumstances, penalising a motorist who actually paid is not a proven breach.

4. Entrance sign non-compliance (PPSCoP 6.1). The entrance board provided (“Welcome to Myrtle Parade Pay and Display – Please see signage in the car park for terms and conditions”) does not state “Private Land” and does not warn of camera enforcement where ANPR is used. It is a generic welcome sign and fails 6.1’s clarity and conspicuity requirements.

5. Consideration and grace periods (PPSCoP 5.1 and 5.2). The operator relies on ANPR entry/exit timestamps. ANPR logs ingress/egress, not a period parked or the effect of the mandatory consideration and grace periods. The operator has not shown that any alleged non-payment extended beyond both 5.1 and 5.2.

6. Period of parking (PoFA Sch 4 para 9(2)(a)). Even if PoFA timing/content is otherwise asserted, the NTK and evidence must identify a period of parking rather than only entry/exit times. The operator has not demonstrated a period parked without payment, particularly where payment evidence exists.

7. Posting records (PPSCoP 8.1.2(d) Note 2). If they rely on posting dates they must show a postal operator or consolidator posting record, not merely a system “generated” timestamp.

8. Landowner authority (PPSCoP 14.1(a)–(j)). No contemporaneous, unredacted landowner agreement meeting the mandatory elements (landowner identity, boundary plan, scope and duration, enforcement and PCN powers, etc.) has been produced. Standing remains unproven.

Outcome sought: Given (a) payment was made and evidenced, (b) non-compliant entrance signage under 6.1, (c) no proof of prominent payment terms under 6.2/6.3, (d) failure to account for 5.1/5.2, (e) no demonstrated period of parking per PoFA 9(2)(a), (f) missing posting proof under 8.1.2(d) Note 2, and (g) no landowner authority under 14.1(a)–(j), the operator has not discharged its burden. The appeal should be allowed.

---

Letter of Claim response already sent (verbatim where possible):

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter of Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client places reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.


As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.


The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.


Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.


I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter of Claim that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please provide:


A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012 liability.


A copy of the contract you allege exists between your client and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s) in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with a site plan showing the sign locations.


The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.


The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to litigate.


A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes VAT.


I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own obligation under paragraph 6(b).


If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and will raise a formal complaint to the SRA regarding your conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).


Until your client complies and provides the requested material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling provision of the above.


Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will only respond by email or post.


Yours faithfully,
[my name]

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

[b789]

@ntown, this what is going to happen… a county court claim is going to be issued through DCB Legal. When you deceive the claim which will arrive by post from HMCTS, let me know. 

When it arrives, you only need show me the N1SDT form with the Particulars of Claim (PoC). Only redact your personal data and the claim number. I will give you a suitable defence to respond with. 

I can assure you with greater than 99% certainty that the claim will eventually be discontinued or struck out as long as you follow the advice. That is many months down the line though.

[ntown]

@ntown, this what is going to happen… a county court claim is going to be issued through DCB Legal. When you deceive the claim which will arrive by post from HMCTS, let me know. 

When it arrives, you only need show me the N1SDT form with the Particulars of Claim (PoC). Only redact your personal data and the claim number. I will give you a suitable defence to respond with. 

I can assure you with greater than 99% certainty that the claim will eventually be discontinued or struck out as long as you follow the advice. That is many months down the line though.

Understood thanks.

I have had to move house again. Should I send a DRN to nationalparkingcontrol or dcblegal or both?

[b789]

@ntown, yes, you must send a DRN to both NPC and DCB legal. If you don't, they could issue a claim and you would not know about it and then they could apply for a CCJ by default. That would be a PITA to have to get set aside.

[ntown]

@ntown, yes, you must send a DRN to both NPC and DCB legal. If you don't, they could issue a claim and you would not know about it and then they could apply for a CCJ by default. That would be a PITA to have to get set aside.

Hello, 

I did not get around to sending the DRN yet but I will send it now.

In the meantime I have received the attached response



and attachments from dcb legal

 
 

---

I have sent both DRNs now

[b789]

Hi @ntown. DCB Legal’s reply to your Letter of Claim response changes very little.

Their email is the usual DCB Legal boilerplate. They assert compliance, attach some documents, repeat the usual wording about the charge and invite payment. That is not a substantive answer to the points you raised. It is simply the usual template response before they move to the next stage.

The important practical point is that this is exactly like the normal DCB Legal pattern. They will almost certainly issue a county court claim. That should not cause alarm. In these cases, the claim is usually just the next step in their bulk process. They routinely push cases forward and continue them through the allocation stage, but the usual pattern is that they do not want to have to go through the process and issue their witness statement and to pay the hearing fee. Before that point, they usually try to make contact and offer some form of settlement. That is the precursor that tells you that the case is heading toward discontinuance as long as you do not respond their offers of settlement.

Do not be rattled by their response. Do not treat their attachments as some sort of knockout blow. Do not be surprised when the claim arrives. And if, later on, DCB Legal start making settlement approaches, those should be ignored. Their usual model is to pressure defendants into paying before they themselves have to commit more money to taking the case to a hearing. If no settlement is accepted, as you will see, they will issue an N279 Notice of Discontinuance.

For now, there is nothing further of substance to do beyond keeping all correspondence safe and waiting for the claim form. When that arrives, come back with the N1SDT and Particulars of Claim and the defence can be dealt with then.