Perfect will refer to that, thank you

That is all that was received, nothing else in the envelope or previously apart from a letter from DCB asking to get in touch with them with an offer for settlement

Hello all, been a while since my last post in this thread, have been patiently waiting for my allocation to the small claims track, which has now arrived. Although it is dated 04/04 it was only put through the letter box yesterday! I have until 22/02 to submit the form so any help would be greatly appreciated! I will upload all pages of the form if necessary Thanks Small claims court .pdf

Documents from DCB legal in relation to CPR request DCB_legal_response_to_CPR_.pdf

Have definitely learnt my lesson in terms of keeping paper work, will be sure to file it all and keep it safe. new generation’s reply to my SAR was indeed just that, the opening page, a second page saying the subject access request is attached then nothing but pictures of CCTV & the entirety of the appeal process with times & dates of when I accessed the appeals portal. However DCB legal’s reply to the request I sent to them was a bit more thorough, it includes the final reminder from new generation before being passed to DCB legal & even the agreement between land owner & company to enforce these charges. Along with all the photos I’ve previously posted & my rejected appeal. I’ll be sure to get all these documents uploaded tomorrow as soon as I’m able to

Morning! apologies for delay in reply, defence is now submitted ready for whatever you advise next Thank you

Would this be a letter from DCB legal or an official looking letter from the court/ government? If the former I’d like to say no, but there is a possibility. I’ll be honest anything with the DCB letterhead went straight into the bin without much notice. If the latter, then no as I’ve been sure to keep any eye out for anything official from the court.

Ok I appreciate the advice thank you, here is my defence as it stands, as copied from the sticky posted earlier, with the reg to be inputted before sending : The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

I am preparing my defence today using the template provided on here, would their poor response to my SAR be worth a mention in the defence? Appreciate the advice

Hopefully this is better. New Generation response to SAR for context I was purchasing an item through Facebook marketplace, reason for meeting another vehicle New_gen_response_to_SAR.pdf

Hi all, just an update, I am planning on going ahead with my defence & fighting as you’ve said, have nothing else to lose now! Have received these letters from DCB legal in response to what I’ve sent them, included in the pack were the all of the photos I’ve previously uploaded to this thread, my vehicle, signs & site map. Along with my appeal. latest letters.pdf

Even though I’m not a regular I can confidently say these were taken with CCTV as there is no elevated platform the attendant could have reached to take these photos, I don’t believe parking attendants are ever present at this site due to its size & the time of night makes me think it is even less likely. The HRG reg was indeed the vehicle obstructing my access to the bay as it was present before I arrived The open bay next to where I have parked may be my downfall here, I perhaps should have used that space but had in mind that another car may use the disabled bay I had intended to use, therefore limiting access to the passenger side of my vehicle, being forced to park outside of the bay themselves. I will also admit I didn’t even realise at the time how desperate these parking companies had gotten and had no idea parking fines were issued for parking outside of marked bays

Have definitely learnt my lesson and will refrain from appealing anything like this in future, will send all photos I have available, thanks everyone car _merged.pdf

Will get the SAR sent off to new gen parking

This is the full appeal & response : You reported that you were the registered keeper but is not prepared to state who was driving at the time the parking charge was issued. You reported that you are being held liable for the parking charge. You completed the appeal on 09/02/2023 18:19:20. Upon arriving at the shopping centre The driver attempted to park in the disabled bay, which at the time was encroached by another vehicle already parked well outside of their bay, not displaying a badge. Due to the nature of the visit, the driver was required to park promptly and exit the vehicle, whilst displaying the blue disabled badge. Upon appealing, apparently the only thing that matters in this case is the sign post stating the parking bays must be adhered to at all times. Without any recognition for the fact the driver was physically not able to park elsewhere & correctly displayed their blue parking badge The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 16/02/2023 15:02:06. The Operator Reported That... The appellant was the driver. The appellant was the keeper. The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA.. ANPR/CCTV was used. The Notice to Keeper was sent on 15/12/2022. A response was received from the Notice to Keeper. The ticket was issued on 09/12/2022. The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA. The charge is based in Contract. The Operator Made The Following Comments... The vehicle was not parked fully within the confines of a marked parking bay whilst parked in one of the carpark that we manage. Signage displayed throughout the site states "Vehicles to be parked within the confines of a marked parking bay". As the vehicle was in breach of the terms and conditions that are stated on the contractual signage throughout the site, a Parking Charge was issued. As stated in the NGP initial appeal: Arrived on site with a disabled passenger & as is visible in photo, we were unable to park in the disabled bay due to the other vehicle in the photo encroaching the disabled bay, meaning my passenger could not physically get out of the vehicle if we had parked between the marked lines. Please see photo for proof of blue badge & photo of parking on the day. Blue badge was displayed whilst parked. >> We would just like to clarify that upon receiving their appeal, we reviewed the CCTV footage from the date in question and at no point did a passenger leave the vehicle nor is the keeper mentioning these facts to this IAS appeal. We note that during the appeal process that we were provided with a disabled badge, but not the full badge showing whose badge this belongs to. Nevertheless the driver failed to correctly park within confines of the bay. However for the IAS adjudicators viewing only we have attached a file titled "PCN ...." This file shows the events that occurred with the driver on this date. Please see file titled "Malpas Road Shopping Park" which shows what the signage looks like onsite. Please see the file titled "Vehicle Location" which shows where the vehicle was parked and where the signage was located near by. I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them. A number of images, including a site map have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site. The signage at this site makes it clear that parking is on private land and that vehicles must be parked wholly within the confines of a marked parking bay and that a failure to comply with that term and condition will result in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice. I can see from the photographs provided that the Appellant was not parked within the confines of a marked bay, which the Appellant accepts. Whilst I appreciate the circumstances raised by the Appellant, mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. Simply by parking outside of a marked bay the Appellant breached the displayed terms and conditions and as such I am satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion. I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed. Currently appealed ..... Issued on 09/12/2022 by New Generation Parking Management Ltd to vehicle registration Originally rejected by operator on 02/02/2023