-
A few months ago, a family member overstayed their time in a private Belfast car park by 20 minutes.
A few weeks later, the registered keeper of the vehicle (not the driver on the day) received a PCN because of this overstay. Given that the registered keeper – who lives in Northern Ireland – was not the driver at the time, the PCN was promptly ignored. DCBL have now started writing letters about the allegedly outstanding charge. Again, these have been ignored.
However, this morning, another family member (who has nothing to do with the vehicle beyond being a named driver) received a letter to their home address. This letter was addressed to the registered keeper but the registered keeper has never lived at this property.
The opening line of this latest missive advises that because previous correspondence went unanswered, a tracing service had been employed to identify alternative addresses. The registered keeper and the person living at the property have similar (but not the same) names. Obviously, the newest recipient of a letter from DCBL has even less of an obligation to engage with it than the registered keeper and they have no intention of doing anything other than disregarding it. That said, can DCBL be reported for sending speculative invoices to random addresses? Is there any redress for distress etc.? -
-
DCBL are allowed to contact the address and ask if the person they are trying to make contact with lives there and they can't be reported or sued for doing so if they only do it once.
If DCBL repeatedly contacted the address that might be harrassment and action could be taken. But only if DCBL have been told the person doesn't live there.
However ignoring it might lead to more letters from DCBL and even visits by debt collectors to the property. so best not to ingnore it.
The person should send the letter back to DCBL stating simply that "XXXX [the name DCBL have put on their letter] does not live here. Please do not contact me again about this matter". Normally I'd just write 'return to sender' on the envelope and shove it back in a postbox but on this occasion it would be better that they send it back in a fresh envelope and put postage on it so that they can get a proof of posting at the post office to use as evidence if DCBL try to contact the address again. -
-
Quote
even visits by debt collectors to the property
I'm not aware of any examples of DCBL ever turning up in person to seek payment of disputed parking charge notices. -
-
@PallasAthena's post is well‑intentioned but legally sloppy, and it mixes up three different regulatory regimes:• Debt collection regulation (FCA)
• Harassment law (Protection from Harassment Act 1997/NI equivalent)
• Data protection (UK GDPR/DPA 2018)
DCBL are a debt collector. They are not a party to any alleged parking contract, they have no independent cause of action, and they have no power to determine liability. They cannot issue proceedings in their own name and cannot lawfully demand payment from anyone who is not the alleged debtor.
In Northern Ireland there is no statutory keeper liability for private parking charges. If the registered keeper was not the driver, the operator has no lawful mechanism to transfer liability. That is the end of the matter as far as enforcement is concerned unless the operator can identify and pursue the driver directly.
Ignoring debt collector letters sent to the correct person is therefore entirely rational and what we usually advise. They add nothing, achieve nothing, and do not advance the matter in any meaningful legal sense. If the operator wants to pursue the charge, it is for the operator, not a debt collector, to take responsibility for that decision.
However, this situation is different because DCBL have written to an address where the named person has never lived. That is not about engaging with the alleged debt; it is about stopping a mis-trace.
The only sensible reason to respond at all is to prevent continued nuisance to an unrelated household. A single, neutral correction closes the loop. It does not legitimise DCBL, it does not acknowledge the debt, and it does not concede anything. It simply removes the wrongly targeted address from circulation.
One short response is enough. It should do only three things: state that the named person does not live at the address, require that the address be removed from DCBL’s records for that individual, and require that there be no further contact to that address about that person. Nothing else should be said.
If DCBL then continue to write after being clearly told the person does not live there, they lose any protection they might otherwise claim. At that point, complaints about misuse of personal data and unreasonable conduct become well-founded.
If they stop after one correction, the issue ends cleanly. If they do not, they have created the evidence against themselves.
No one at the mis-traced address should discuss the parking charge, the vehicle, the driver, the keeper, or Northern Ireland law with DCBL. None of that is their problem, and none of it is DCBL’s business.
In short: DCBL are powerless in substance, but correcting a wrong address once is about shutting down nuisance, not empowering them. After that, silence is entirely appropriate unless the actual parking operator or a solicitor appears with something that genuinely matters.
Send the following to DCBL by first class post and get a free proof of posting certificate from any post office. Do not sign it with a handwritten signature (typed name only). Do not add anything else, even if tempted.:QuoteTo whom it may concern,
You have written to this address regarding [NAME]. That person has never lived here.
This address is not associated with the individual you are seeking. Your records are therefore inaccurate.
You are required to remove this address from your records for that individual and must not contact this address again in connection with them.
Any further contact to this address after receipt of this notice will be treated as misuse of personal data and will be reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
This notice constitutes a formal data rectification request.
[Name]
[Address] -
-
@PallasAthena's post is well‑intentioned but legally sloppy,
Thank you for your patronising response. I didn't offer any analysis of regulatory regimes nor give legal advice. It was not necessary for the practical advice for what they should actually do based on personal experience, as should have been clear from my post.
If you think any part of my advice to the OP is wrong just spit it out and say which bit it is. -
-
Quote
even visits by debt collectors to the property
I'm not aware of any examples of DCBL ever turning up in person to seek payment of disputed parking charge notices.
My point was that if the occupant of the address completely ignores all letters DCBL might turn up trying to find if the person they are looking for lives there (not to seek payment). They turned up at my daughter's looking for an ex-tenant for exactly that reason. -
-
Hi PallasAthena, thanks for the response.
However, to be clear, English debt collectors are not going to turn up at an address in Belfast. Neither are their agents. -
-
Perhaps an obvious additional point to that already given, but the resident of this 'new' address should check carefully their post from now on. If it is addressed to the person who doesn't live there (with the similar name), I'd be sending it back unopened.
-
-
Thank you for this comprehensive and helpful response, b789.
-
Agree x 1
View List