-
Good afternoon,
I am seeking legal advice regarding a parking incident that occurred in Leeds on 30/10/2024.
Since then, I have received the attached letters regarding this matter.
I would appreciate your legal guidance on how to proceed.
Thank you.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
Do you still have the original notice to keeper - can you post it up?
-
-
did you reply/appeal at any point?
if so did you reveal who was driving? -
-
No the keeper didn't appeal and the driver didn't receive the pcn
-
-
That’s not the answer to the question asked, and your answer reveals who the driver was, which you are advised not to do.
Point 2 of the READ THIS FIRST post. -
-
So sorry about that, I didn't reply and I never revealed who drove the car to them
-
-
yes edit your post.
its likely dcb legal will discontinue before any court action or will enter insufficient particulars of claim.
@b789 is up on the ness to defend this and will no doubt comment.
it's also likely Excels NTK wasn't Fully pofa compliant and therefore they had no authority to chase the keeper. -
-
Never, ever refer to yourself as the driver. Are you listed as the "owner" in the official "Register of vehicle Owners"... No you are not as there is no such thing! You are the Registered Keeper (RK). If you look very carefully at the front of your V5C registration document, you will see printed very boldly in capital letters:Quote
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP
Excel have (or had until you posted here) no idea of the identity of the driver. They only know (or knew) the identity of the Keeper. The Keeper and the driver are two separate legal entities and there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.
The Keeper should only ever refer to the driver in the third person such as "The driver did this or that", not "I did this or that"!
DCBL have absolutely nothing to do with this and you correctly ignored them. However, DCB Legal (a sister company) have now issued a Letter of Claim (LoC). If the amount claimed is not paid within 30 days, they can issue a county court claim for the alleged debt without further notice. You definitely can't ignore an N1 SDT Claim Form from the CNBC when it arrives.
For now, I suggest you edit your post to remove any identification of who was driving. Also, you can respond to the LoC with the following:QuoteDCB Legal
Direct House
Greenwood Drive
Manor Park
Runcorn
WA7 1UG
By email to: info@dcblegal.co.uk
[Date]
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 22nd January 2025
I refer to your Letter of Claim.
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:
[YOUR ADDRESS]
Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.
I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists”. Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.
Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.
2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.
I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
Save it as a PDF file and attach it to an email addressed to info@dcblegal.co.uk and also CC in yourself.
Come back when they respond. -
-
Thank you
I will do that immediately and keep you posted -
-
No the KEEPER didn't appeal
ftfy
the driver didn't recive the pcn -
-
Good evening
I just received an email from dcblegal.
Please kindly advise on the next step
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
Report DCB Legal to HMRC of suspected VAT fraud, probably in the £millions.
Respond with the following:QuoteDear Sirs,
You appear to be deliberately attempting to mislead me by stating that the added sum is a "contribution to the actual costs incurred by your Client as a result of non-payment."
Please stop pretending this isn’t your own debt recovery fee, which you keep rather than the parking operator. This ploy was first introduced by Gladstones when they began marketing 'no win, no fee' services to parking firms over a decade ago. This was openly advertised in the IPC newsletter at the time, with the first iteration being a £50 addition.
This is your success fee, isn’t it?
You are providing a VATable service to your client, so VAT applies to this fee. It is not part of the parking charge and has nothing to do with the so-called ‘work’ undertaken by one of your rogue private parking clients. It is your fee—your share of the spoils.
So, I ask again: why am I expected to pay your client’s fee for your VATable service, and why am I expected to pay the VAT element when HMRC has ruled that VAT on such a service cannot be passed onto a consumer because the service is provided to the trader?
If you are unable to understand this question, kindly pass the file to someone with the intellectual capacity who does. I expect a proper response, not a recycled template with grammar that indicates the author has yet to graduate primary school, trying to disguise this fee as anything other than what it is.
I suggest you try again otherwise this suspected VAT fraud will be reported to HMRC.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Wait for the N1SDT Claim Form to arrive from the CNBC and then show it to us. Only redact your personal info, the claim number and the MCOL password. -
-
Thank you, I will keep you posted
-
-
Good afternoon
I just received N1SDT Claim form with the other N9 parks.
I will appreciate your advise on the next step
Thank you all
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
Did you ever get a response to your response? You may feel emboldened and some schadenfreude when you read this story:
Parking firm told to pay £10k in five-minute rule row
With an issue date of 2nd April, you have until 4pm on Monday 21st April to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 6th May to submit your defence.
If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order that goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.
When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF attachment and send as an attachment in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of Excel Parking Services Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."QuoteIN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
Excel Parking Services Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.
5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
Draft Order for the defence -