BP Hatton Cross - N1SDT - not sure I have any defence?

[espere_alys]

oh - found it. Will put here in case anyone searches this:


DQ.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

[des8]

Thanks for the link (I can never find it!)

Reason for hearing in person: Claimant's POC inadequate and so need clarification to argue defence fully

[espere_alys]

thank you!

FYI full details on all the email & other contacts for this process can be found by searching the court name as "Civil National Business Centre"

https://www.find-court-tribunal.serv...ss-centre-cnbc

[espere_alys]

I'm 50-something in a queue to talk to them on the phone also.

Have emailed the DQ to the above address and a copy to DCB Legal.

Will let you know what they say on the phone if I ever get through!

[espere_alys]

oh ha! it cut me off at bang on 1700hrs. Will try again next week. Have a lovely weekend.

[espere_alys]

There has been an update but no letter yet.
I'm so nervous that I'm not getting post from them, I don't really know what to do about it, they have my correct address.
Anyway - here is latest:

A claim was issued against you on 18/09/2024

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 25/09/2024 at 04:37:46

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 25/09/2024 at 08:05:51

Your defence was submitted on 20/10/2024 at 20:55:17

Your defence was received on 21/10/2024 at 08:05:33

Case Stay Lifted on 26/11/2024

DQ sent to you on 26/11/2024

DQ filed by claimant on 26/11/2024

Case Stay Lifted on 15/01/2025

General sanctions order was made on 15/01/2025

[des8]

You need to contact the court to confirm they have received your DQ
What is the wording of the order? It is probably giving you a number of days in which to comply with the order to complete the DQ

[espere_alys]

I can't see anywhere on the https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/ site where they put any documents sent out.
So I presume I can only receive this by post.
I will try ringing them again.

[espere_alys]

ok - got through on the phone. Turns out luckily I got the DQ in before the extended deadline

Now the wait time is one to two weeks for DQ team to process and they will be in touch to organise hearing or mediation

Still not getting any post from them, but apparently I need to contact Royal Mail about that!

[des8]

So just keep an eye on the website as I wouldn't trust Royal Mail!

[espere_alys]

Hello.
I have been sent an email with appt for a mediation.
I think DCB have tried to ring me a few times but I was abroad. Not sure I want to speak to them anyway!
The mediation appointment is on Monday the 24th February between 0930 and 1230.

[des8]

Well you won't be speaking with them during the mediation
The court appointed mediator shuffles between you both trying to arrange a compromise.

You might like to try and obtain their agreement to accept a much lower amount than they are claiming.
Bear in mind that if it goes to court you might be there all day (?a day off work or holiday for which you will not recover)
If you aren't used to court, there will be a certain amount of stress (altho' nowhere near as bad as some imagine!)
and more preparation work for the court hearing.

Suggest you read and re-read your defence before the mediation
Do not identify the driver during mediation

[espere_alys]

I have just been refreshing my memory and prepping for my mediation tomorrow morning (Monday 24th some time btw 0930 - 1230).
I have settled on £60 as the max. amount i would be willing to pay in order to prevent further stress and hassle.
Especially given the other poster's success in the counter offer.
DCB did not send me an offer as far as I can see, so I never had anything to counteroffer against.
I will say having prepped I do feel like they are in the wrong due to the failure to create a contract, and if I can fully embody that defence then it may be more useful to go to court merely as an opportunity to challenge the unfair and slapdash nature of this type of 'parking management'.

Anyway - here's my crib sheet so I can stay on track, i thought this might be useful for any other forum users in similar position.
Also if you think I've missed or misinterpreted anything I would love to hear it!

--

MEDIATION CRIB SHEET
EspereAlys v DCB Legal

Aim: Get the Case Dropped, or Settled at £60 (Without Admitting Liability)

Best Outcome: Case dropped due to lack of clear evidence and/or unclear contract terms.
Fallback: If settlement is needed, offer £60, but do not admit liability.
Stand Firm: If they refuse £60 and demand more, be prepared to take it to court, where their extra fees and weak evidence can be challenged.

#1: Challenge Lack of Evidence in Claim Form N1SDT

• The only evidence provided is a close-up of the number plate, there are no full images showing the vehicle in the petrol station car park.
• The wider images do not clearly show the location, there is no visible signage, no markings, or any clear reference to the petrol station parking area.
• A timestamp alone does not prove where the vehicle was parked, it only shows a moment in time.
• There is no evidence of who was driving, Under POFA 2012 Schedule 4, a parking firm must follow strict rules to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. Liability cannot automatically transfer to the registered keeper.
• The claim does not explain how the £170 charge was calculated or provide a breakdown of additional costs.

The claimants images do not conclusively show the vehicle was in the petrol station car park. The photos lack clear reference points, and a timestamp alone does not establish a contractual breach. If there is no solid evidence, this case should not proceed.

#2: Unclear Signage and Contract Issues Therefore, No Valid Contract Formed

• The signage on site (confirmed via Google Maps and personal visit) refers to "Maximum Stay" but does not state that staying longer results in a charge.
• The claim states "parking longer than the maximum period allowed",but this is not the same as breaching a contract.
• In contract law, a contract must be clear, unambiguous, and actively accepted, simply being on-site does not mean a contract was agreed to.
• The signage states that parking is for customers only, meaning it forbids non-customers from parking, if parking was prohibited for non-customers, no contract could have been made.
• If the sign does not explicitly state, "By staying longer than 30 minutes, you agree to pay a charge of £X", then no enforceable contract exists, it is an arbitrary penalty.
• The Supreme Court case ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) ruled that parking terms must be clear and fair—this signage does not meet that standard.

The signage at this location does not meet the legal standard for forming a valid contract. A "Maximum Stay" is a restriction, and this is not the same as an agreement to pay a charge; in addition, the terms of any contract must be clear and enforceable.

The signage states that parking is for customers only, meaning it restricts access rather than offering parking under specific terms. If parking was prohibited for non-customers, then no valid contract was available to be accepted. In contract law, a contract cannot be formed if the terms are forbidding an action rather than offering a service under conditions.

#3: Even If DCB Won, They Cannot Claim Extra Fees

• The original letter stated that the charge was £100, with an offer to pay £60 if settled within 14 days. This shows that £60 was considered a fair resolution at that time.
• POFA 2012 states that private parking firms can only recover the original parking charge from the keeper, not additional recovery costs.
• The claim includes interest and extra charges beyond the original £60, which courts have previously ruled as an abuse of process (Excel Parking v Wilkinson, 2020).
• Legal costs in small claims court are capped at £50, so the total claim of £206.56+ is excessive and not legally justified.
• The Supreme Court ruled that parking charges must be a fair estimate of loss, but these extra charges are inflated and not justified.

Even if the claim were valid, which is not accepted, POFA 2012 states that only the original parking charge can be recovered. The additional fees being claimed are excessive and unenforceable. The legal costs are capped at £50, so the demand for £206+ is not legally justified.

#4: If They Refuse to Drop the Case, Offer to Settle at the Original Parking Charge (£60). But Not Admit Liability

Even if the driver were liable, which is not accepted, the only reasonable settlement would be based on the original parking charge, not the inflated fees. I would consider settling for £60 to resolve the matter, but I do not accept liability for the claim.

ParkingEye v Beavis established that parking charges must either be a genuine pre-estimate of loss or serve a legitimate purpose. If the charge could be settled for £60 before, this suggests £60 is a reasonable amount, and there is no basis for demanding £170 plus interest. The additional fees are excessive and unfair, and I am prepared to challenge them in court if necessary.

If They Reject £60 and Push for More - be prepared to go to court:

The extra charges appear excessive and legally questionable. If the claimant is unwilling to settle fairly, I am prepared to challenge the claim in court, where their additional fees and unclear contract terms can be properly examined.

[des8]

Thanks for the crib ... it might be useful

I would not start by offering £60 .... £20 and work upwards if necessary.

For minor infringements the parking operators code of practice only permits a charge of £20

Good luck, and please keep us informed.

[espere_alys]

good to know! thank you for all the help so far, will keep you posted.