Free Traffic Legal Advice

Welcome. If only you hadn't blabbed the drivers identity, this could have been resolved in an easier manner. Never mind, it is still going to be dealt with. No one who is here receiving advice and following it pays a penny to UKPC.

Was the original Parking Charge Notice issued as windscreen Notice to Driver (NtD) or as a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK). I would need to see the original NtD or NtK. Reminders are of no use. Make sure that ALL dates and times are not redacted.

Did you appeal to POPLA? If so, what exactly did you put in that appeal?

When you say the initial appeal was made by you, as the driver, at some point before this, did the Registered Keeper (RK) transfer liability to you as the driver? If not, I am surprised that they accepted any appeal that wasn't from the named Keeper.

You mention that the passenger had "mobility issues". Did the passenger have a blue badge? Are the mobility issues you mention due to "protected characteristics" according to the Equality Act 2010?

1. Protected Characteristic – Disability is one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

2. Reasonable Adjustments – Businesses, service providers, and landowners have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals, which can include:

• Allowing extra time for parking if the person requires longer to get in and out of the vehicle or access services.
• Providing wider parking spaces or step-free access.
• Adjusting policies to accommodate disabled people.

3. Indirect Discrimination – If a parking operator or landowner enforces rigid time limits without considering the needs of disabled individuals, it may constitute indirect discrimination under Section 19 of the Act.

4. Public & Private Land – While the Act applies to public bodies, it also applies to private companies offering services to the public, such as private parking operators.

How This Applies to Parking:

• If a disabled driver or passenger needs extra time due to their condition, a rigid enforcement of time limits could be unlawful.
• If a parking operator refuses to consider an appeal from a disabled person who overstayed due to their mobility issues, they may be in breach of the Act.
• Parking operators should allow reasonable adjustments, such as extra time for disabled individuals, even if they do not display a Blue Badge (as the Act protects disabled people regardless of the badge scheme).

Before we go on with advice on how to respond to the Letter of Claim (LoC), please answer the questions I have asked.

Where is the image of the original NtK?

This wording is problematic:

Following that online appeal to UKPC I expected a some sort of letter to be sent to me and there was nothing at all. I think it was not until 3rd  October when I started receiving letters from DCBL that I understood that the original appeal was not considered at all.

But your appeal was considered. You clearly received an appeal rejection from UKPC and a POPLA code. What else were you "expecting" to receive if you didn't appeal to POPLA?

Whilst it is very unlikely that this will ever get as far as a hearing because the MO of DCB Legal is to discontinue any claims as long as they are defended, we need to consider any procedural weaknesses.

1. The Appeal Rejection Letter Acts as a Demand for Payment


2. No Legal Requirement to Reissue a PCN in the Driver’s Name


3. Procedural Flaw Argument Is Weakened


4. Impact on Any Future Legal Proceedings


So, for now, respond to the LoC by emailing info@dcblegal.co.uk and also CC in yourself the following:

Dear Sirs,

Re: Letter of Claim dated 20th January 2025

I refer to your Letter of Claim.

I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I formally request that any other addresses you hold with regards to the PCN be erased from your records to ensure compliance with your UK GDPR obligations under the Data Protection Act 2018.

[current postal address]

Please note that the alleged debt is fully disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.

The driver made a reasonable adjustment to assist a passenger with mobility difficulties in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. The minor encroachment into a non-adjoining cross-hatched area was necessary for the disabled passenger to exit and re-enter the vehicle.

Under the PAP, I require an answer to the following questions regarding procedural fairness and the Equality Act 2010:

• Why did your client fail to consider this as a mitigating factor before rejecting the appeal?
• Under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010, service providers must make reasonable adjustments—why did your client not exercise discretion in this case?

If this matter proceeds to court, I will invite the court to assess whether your client’s refusal to consider a reasonable adjustment amounts to indirect discrimination under Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010.

I also note that the sum claimed has been artificially inflated by an excessive and unjustifiable amount. All charges and fees must be clearly justified and proportionate.

Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAP), I also require specific answers to the following questions:

1. Debt Recovery & Additional Charges

• 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, why am I – as the alleged debtor – being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability?

2. Legal Basis for the Alleged Charge

• Is the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN) being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or is it being pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
• If it is being claimed as consideration for a contractual service (i.e., a parking fee), then VAT must be applied and accounted for. Please confirm whether your client has declared this to HMRC.

I caution you against vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. If your client is claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, this raises serious concerns about compliance with HMRC regulations and financial fairness under the PPSCoP.

I strongly advise your client to cease and desist from pursuing this matter. Should this proceed to court:

• These issues will be brought to the court’s attention.
• A robust defence will be filed, challenging the enforceability of this charge.
• I will consider applying for unreasonable costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) if your client proceeds with a legally unsound claim.

I expect a full response to these points in compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

Yours faithfully,

[YOUR NAME]

Can you confirm that you have responded to the LoC as advised and that we are now waiting for their response?

Can you confirm that you have responded to the LoC as advised and that we are now waiting for their response?

I can now confirm that I have responded to the LoC as advised and we are now waiting for their response. Thank you very much for your kind assistance so far

Do NOT add the "As I am now seeking for independant [sic] debt advice, I ask the matter to be put on hold for 30 additional days, according to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP')." unless you need the extra time for a particular reason. Why on earth would you want to prolong an already protracted process by another month?

This used to be used to give the defendant time to get an SAR. However, since the Chan and Akande persuasive appeals decisions, you do not want to give the claimant ammunition and should let them file their claims with all the CPR flaws.

It never fails to amuse me how many people rush to respond to an LoC with the above sentence just days after receiving the LoC. The extra 30 days only applies from the date you request it. It is not simply added to the end of the initial 30 days. These people then wonder why they receive a claim after just 5 weeks from the initial LoC!

Do not make any further communication about letters from DCBL. Ignore anything and everything from DCBL. Their only job is to panic you into making mistakes.

You seem to be under the misguided impression that there is some actual thought and human intervention that is going to step in and feel sorry for your plight. Get notion out of your head.

You are dealing with a largely automated process that uses boilerplate templates and churns out hundreds of thousands of these LoCs a year. DCB Legal and DCBL are part of the same group but are completely separate legal entities. There is no “working together”.

UKPC can instruct DGBL to close their case, as they put it. That does not mean that UKPC have closed “their” case. I would go so far as to suggest that UKPC have not been involved with this since a month after they issued the PCN.

DCB Legal ARE going to issue a claim, whatever you do now. Wait for the claim to be issued. Once you are in receipt of the claim, you can SAR both UKOC and DCB Legal to find out exactly what correspondence there was between either of them and DCBL.

It is not going to make any difference to the outcome which is going to be a strike out or a discontinuation.

So today I have received two replies from DCB Legal. The second email asked to ignore the first one and had additional picture added to the email. Both emails had pictures of the car parked in the spot, my appeal and response to it, and the second email had additional picture of the parking sign in the same car park.

The first email was as follows:




Dear xxx xxx, 

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office dated 18/02/2025.

We now respond to the same as follows.

The terms and conditions on the signs stated that parking was permitted for vehicles parked wholly within a marked bay. The vehicle was not parked within a marked bay as is demonstrated in the photographic evidence enclosed. The Parking Charge was issued due to breach of contract and not for loss or damages.  The parking charge was issued correctly. See enclosed signage and appeal and response.

The Parking Charge of £100.00 has been issued as per the Contract. A charge of £70.00 has been added to the sum as per the contractual costs outlined on the signs, as the Claimant has had to go to the expense of instructing debt collection agencies to recover the debt. 

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.

Please note, our Client has not acted in a discriminatory manner, any vehicle to have been found in breach of the terms and conditions as per the signage would have been issued with a Parking Charge.

You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment of £170.00. Failure to make payment may 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.

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,
 
Lorraine Boardman
Administration Associate
DCB Legal Ltd 
 
Tel: 0203 434 0433 | DX 23457 Runcorn




Then the following email was sent 3 minutes later:



Dear xxx xxx, 

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office dated 18/02/2025.

We now respond to the same as follows.

Please ignore the previous email.

The terms and conditions on the signs stated that parking was permitted for vehicles parked wholly within a marked bay. The vehicle was not parked within a marked bay as is demonstrated in the photographic evidence enclosed. The Parking Charge was issued due to breach of contract and not for loss or damages.  The parking charge was issued correctly. See enclosed signage and appeal and response.

The Parking Charge of £100.00 has been issued as per the Contract. A charge of £70.00 has been added to the sum as per the contractual costs outlined on the signs, as the Claimant has had to go to the expense of instructing debt collection agencies to recover the debt. 

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.

Please note, our Client has not acted in a discriminatory manner, any vehicle to have been found in breach of the terms and conditions as per the signage would have been issued with a Parking Charge.

You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment of £170.00. Failure to make payment may 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 (xxxx) 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,
 
Lorraine Boardman
Administration Associate
DCB Legal Ltd 
 
Tel: 0203 434 0433 | DX 23457 Runcorn




Is there any need to reply to this or just wait for their further action?