Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello @b789, and here's the reply from DCB and the PDF they've sent me.

No copy of contract  and it seems they say asking for it is unreasonable. 

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office.

The parking charge has been issued due to overstay.

When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract and agreeing to the terms by parking and staying on the site. Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract.

The Notice to Keeper was issued to you on 12/08/2024. A copy is attached. You were afforded the opportunity to; appeal the parking charge, transfer liability to the driver (if it was not you) or make payment. Neither a successful appeal, nor an adequate nomination were received, yet payment remains outstanding.

The Reminder Notice was issued to you on 16/09/2024. A copy is attached. This notice reiterated that payment was outstanding and confirmed that legal action may be taken, and additional costs incurred if the parking charge was not paid.

The amount owed is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location to ensure compliance with the clearly displayed terms and conditions. However, in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis, it was found, both at County Court and Court of Appeal level, that appealing a Parking Charge on the basis that the amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss is, in fact, not a successful legal defence.

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. 

For the avoidance of doubt, the outstanding balance consists of £100.00 for the breach in contract as per the signage displayed on site, and £70.00 debt recovery fee.

If there are any documents or information that you have requested, but that are not enclosed, 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.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

I can confirm our Client would be agreeable to £100.00 in full and final settlement of this Claim. The current outstanding balance is £170.00.

You now have 30 days from the date of this email/letter to make payment of £100.00. Failure to make payment may result in a Claim being issued against you without 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 (***MET) 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/.

PDF: https://ibb.co/jk7FwKcW

Hello! I've noticed a very supportive team here behind helping with Stansted Southgate! I have come late as the letter of claim has been issued on the 26th of August and I have only now read a bit more about legal aspects and decided not to ignore it, as I have done with MET letters, expecting the thing to die out. Hoping very much you can advise me before my time runs out   Based on all previous advice here, I'm still struggling to figure out how I should formulate the response. I guess this is one of the reasons people go to pay PCNs. Unfortunately, I was unable to locate the original MET letters that were sent during this period. I understand that the keeper is not obliged to reveal who was driving the car. What I know about the alleged offence is the car parked at night, where now I guess all the "claim" is about, since they expect people to put reg numbers in Starbucks, or have some form of prepayment. A year ago, there was no indication that this was required, only that there was a 1-hour limit. And the car has left the parking before the hour ran out. I'm attaching the letter of claim (1) https://ibb.co/CKtsYhkq (2) https://ibb.co/fzw16J41