We write in response to your correspondence received in our office dated 24/09/2024.
We now respond to the same as follows.
We refer to our communication of 24/09/2024,
We write in response to your correspondence received in our office dated 24/09/2024.
We now respond to the same as follows.
We refer to our communication of 24/09/2024, we confirm that despite your latest correspondence, our position remains as previously advised. As such, should our client instruct us to proceed with further legal action, we reserve the right to do so without any further reference to you.
If you are at all unsure of your legal position, you may wish to seek your own independent legal advice. For example, you may wish to seek independent legal advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau.
You now have 24 days from the date of this email to make payment of £170.00. Failure to make payment will result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference.
Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -
Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
Sort Code: 20-24-09
Account Number: 60964441
You must quote the correct case reference (XXXXXXXX) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.
We would ask that you kindly furnish us with your most up to date telephone number, this can be emailed to us at info@dcblegal.co.uk.
Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to make payment over the telephone or online at https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.
Kind Regards,
Louise Bridle
DCB Legal Ltd
Subject: Continued Non-Compliance with Pre-Action Protocol
Dear Ms Bridle,
I acknowledge receipt of your latest response, dated [insert date].
It is regrettable that you have once again failed to fully comply with the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol (PAP). Despite my repeated and clear requests for information, you have not provided satisfactory answers or the required documentation.
You have also failed to fully address my queries regarding the additional £70 charge, which you assert is a "contractual cost" but provide no breakdown or justification of its calculation in relation to any specific contractual terms. Your attempt to characterise the fee as such does not exempt you from providing clarity, especially in light of the fact that this charge was introduced post-PCN and does not appear to be part of the initial contract at the time of the alleged parking event.
Your refusal to engage with my questions regarding whether VAT applies to the debt recovery fee and your continued reliance on the BPA Code of Practice without addressing the specific issues raised is unhelpful and inconsistent with the spirit of transparency required by the PAP. Simply restating positions without answering reasonable questions amounts to obfuscation, and I find your behaviour obstructive.
I must remind you that the court expects both parties to act reasonably and proportionately before litigation. Should you continue to fail in your obligations under the PAP, I will have no hesitation in bringing this to the attention of the court as evidence of your unwillingness to comply with pre-litigation conduct requirements.
This will be my final request for answers. I therefore give you one final opportunity to:1. Provide a proper breakdown of the additional £70 charge, including the basis upon which it has been added to the claim, and whether it includes VAT.
2. Confirm the full chain of authority for your client’s right to issue parking charges at the location, including the landowner's contract and any applicable sub-contracts.
3. Supply any further documents you deem necessary to clarify your position.
Failure to respond to these reasonable requests in a timely and transparent manner will result in me relying on your failure to comply with the PAP as part of my defence in any future proceedings.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
We write in response to your correspondence received in our office dated 05/09/2024.
We now respond to the same as follows.
The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the vehicle, XXXXXX had stopped to pick up in a restricted zone. The signage on site clearly stipulated, 'no pick up or drop off'. Please see attached. As evidenced by the images of the vehicle attached, the vehicle picks up a passenger. This is a clear breach of the Terms and Conditions of the site. Therefore, it is our Client's position the PCN was issued correctly.
Your appeal was received by our Client on 16/05/2024. In response to your appeal our Client informed you that upon review of the CCTV evidence, it was confirmed your vehicle stopped to collect a passenger on an access road where restrictions apply. Our Client then afforded you the opportunity to pay the PCN at a reduced sum of £60.00 or make an appeal to the Independent Appeals Service. No further payment or appeals were made. Please see attached both the appeal and response.
Given that the case has been escalated to this firm for recovery action, the time to appeal further has now elapsed and payment of the PCN is now required.
The PCN was not paid within the prescribed 28 days or indeed at all. In view of this the sum of £70.00 is also claimed as a contractual cost pursuant to the Contract. The £70.00 contractual cost is not inclusive of VAT.
For clarity, our Client is an approved operator of the International Parking Community. We apologise for the administrative error within our previous correspondence.
We can confirm the Landowner Agreement has been extended by mutual consent. As such, our Client has sufficient authority to manage parking in this location.
Please note, we will not be engaging in further correspondence regarding matters previously discussed.
If there are any documents that you have requested, but that are not attached, it is because we have deemed the request to be disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute. We respectfully draw your attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to act reasonably and proportionately.
You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment of £170.00. Failure to make payment will result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference.
Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -
Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
Sort Code: 20-24-09
Account Number: 60964441
You must quote the correct case reference (XXXXXXX) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.
We would ask that you kindly furnish us with your most up to date telephone number, this can be emailed to us at info@dcblegal.co.uk.
Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to make payment over the telephone or online at https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.
Kind Regards,
Louise Bridle
DCB Legal Ltd
Hi Shahera,
Thanks for your prompt reply, but you seem to have missed a few points.
My initial question was about whether the additional £70 'debt recovery fee' was inclusive or exclusive of VAT, not the original parking charge. Please clarify whether the recovery fee of £70 is inclusive of exclusive of VAT, or whether it's VAT-exempt as you seem to have indicated above.
Point 2 has been completely ignored, so I'll share it again: "Regarding the principal sum allegedly due under the PCN: Is this being claimed as damages, or is it intended to be pleaded as consideration for a service (i.e., parking)?"
You've shared 3 pages of what, according to the numbering in the footers, is an 8 page document. In addition, the term specified within the contract lapsed in January 2023. Furthermore, the contract you have shared is signed by Bristol Airport Ltd, with no reference to the landowner. Please provide the full and valid contract flowing from the landowner, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP), through their managing agent, Bristol Airport Ltd, to your client, evidencing their contractual right to issue PCNs in their own name.
You've alluded to the BPA Code of Conduct, but I note that VCS LTD aren't listed on the BPA's Approved Operators. Can you confirm whether VCS Ltd are bound by the BPA's Code of Conduct?
Under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers to these questions, so please share full answers at your earliest convenience.
Subject: Mendacious Response and Failure to Comply with PAP
Dear Shahera Begum,
I write to address the glaring contradictions in your recent response and your apparent disregard for honesty and transparency.
You have stated that parking charge notices fall outside the scope of VAT according to HMRC’s VATSC06140, and therefore, no VAT invoice is required. However, you go on to state that the additional £70 is for "debt recovery fees" incurred by your client as a result of my alleged non-payment.
This assertion is inconsistent and misleading. Debt recovery fees, unlike parking charges, are not VAT-exempt. You have explicitly admitted that the £70 is for debt recovery, which is a separate service from the PCN. As such, these charges are subject to VAT. Yet, you have chosen to obscure this fact by refusing to provide a breakdown of the amount or clarify whether VAT has been included. This evasiveness strongly suggests that you and/or your client are knowingly attempting to recover an inflated sum without properly accounting for VAT.
Furthermore, your reliance on the BPA Code of Practice to justify the £70 fee does not negate the fact that debt recovery services are not VAT exempt. Your failure to disclose whether VAT is included in this fee, combined with your attempt to characterise the £70 as part of a debt recovery process, exposes a deliberate effort to mislead.
Should this matter proceeds to court, I will bring to the court's attention your blatant contradictions, your mendacious response, and your refusal to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol. This lack of honesty and transparency will be noted as an attempt to confuse and overcharge. The court is unlikely to look favourably upon such conduct, especially when coupled with your disregard for the rules governing pre-litigation disclosure.
I strongly suggest you reconsider your position and provide the clarity and full documentation required by the PAP, including a proper breakdown of the £70 fee with reference to VAT. If you fail to do so, I will have no hesitation in using your own admissions against you and your client in any subsequent proceedings.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
This is not our client’s usual business, and the resources could have been better spent in other areas of the business. Had you of paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so the amount due would not have increased.
We write in response to your correspondence received in our office dated 4th September 2024.
We now respond to the same as follows.
The address we have on our records is your current address - XXXXXXX.
Any previous addresses have been removed.
The HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration manual’ (VATSC06140), which was last updated on 02 September 2020, confirmed that parking charge notices falls out of the scope of VAT. There is no requirement for a VAT invoice to be issued to you.
The sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by our client as a result of your non-payment. Our client’s employees have spent time and material attempting to recover the debt. This is not our client’s usual business, and the resources could have been better spent in other areas of the business. Had you of paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so the amount due would not have increased.
In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, where the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) becomes overdue and before Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be added for the debt recovery fees. BPA - 24.1b “Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue and before Court Proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum (which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added for the debt recovery fees. This sum must not exceed £70 unless prior approval from the BPA has been granted”. The correct recovery fees have been added and will not be removed.
Please see the attached contract agreement.
You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment of £170.00. Failure to make payment will result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference.
Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -
Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
Sort Code: 20-24-09
Account Number: 60964441
You must quote the correct case reference (XXXXX) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.
Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to make payment over the telephone or online at https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.
Kind Regards,
Shahera Begum
Administration Associate
DCB Legal Ltd
Subject: Response to Letter of Claim dated 29th August 2024
Dear DCB Legal,
I acknowledge receipt of your Letter of Claim dated 29th August 2024.
Please note that my address for service, assuming you intend to proceed without undue delay, is as follows: [YOUR ADDRESS]. I require that any previous addresses be removed from your records in accordance with data protection regulations.
I wish to make it clear that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended. No contract can have been entered into, as any signage at the location is prohibitory. It is embarrassing that a firm of supposed legal representatives does not understand this concept.
It has also come to my attention that the amount claimed has been substantially increased by an additional £70. The Government has previously referred to such charges as 'extorting money from motorists,' and I share this view. Therefore, I expect you to refrain from sending any further correspondence justifying this inflated claim without addressing the specific points I raise below.
Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I am entitled to request specific information, and I ask that you provide clear answers to the following questions:1. Am I correct in understanding that the additional £70 is being claimed as a 'Debt Recovery' fee? If so, is this amount inclusive or exclusive of VAT? If it is inclusive, please explain why I am being asked to cover the VAT liability of the operator.
2. Regarding the principal sum allegedly due under the PCN: Is this being claimed as damages, or is it intended to be pleaded as consideration for a service (i.e., parking)?
3. I will require evidence of a contract flowing from the landowner, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP), through their managing agent, Bristol Airport Ltd, to your client, evidencing their contractual right to issue PCNs in their own name.
I look forward to your prompt and full response to these queries.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
I am actually heading towards the car park. I was driving to the pickup area.
VCS are pursuing the keeper under the assumption that they were the driverThey are pursuing the driver, who has been identified to them.
You are at the second one it seems, but going out of the airport. In order to get there you would have gone past the short stay/arrivals car park turning (which you would have done of course since it's closed), gone to the next small roundabout, ignored/missed the left turn for the arrivals/pickup and gone fully round it to get back to that crossing.
Your burden in court is proving that is how events unfolded on the balance of probability.I think the 'other avenues' are the ones already covered above. How events unfolded is irrelevant if no contract was formed. Spending too much time forensically analysing the actions of the passenger may be of detriment rather than benefit, as I suggested above.
Other avenues might be better.
VCS are pursuing the keeper under the assumption that they were the driverThey are pursuing the driver, who has been identified to them.
I'm also concerned about proving this coincidence was exactly that.See what others think, but you might be better off not spending too much time trying to prove that. What you don't want is for the judge to think you're taking the p*** or trying to insult their intelligence.