Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,

I received a debt collector letter from dcbl Direct Collections Bailiffs Ltd for £170, which I ignored, as I noted this has been advised on similar posts on this forum.

However, I have now received a 'Letter of Claim' from DCB Legal Ltd (dated 18 Feb 2025 - link to copy below).

To provide some context - I parked in a Costa Coffee Car Park while I stopped to purchase lunch and overstayed the 2 hour parking allowance, according to dcbl Direct Collections Bailiffs Ltd, by less than 10 minutes.  The bailiff letter included photos of my car showing the times I arrived and left.

The reason given for the fine is "Vehicle Remained in Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms and Conditions."

I used to visit this Costa Coffee regularly in between meetings and have never noticed the parking restrictions before. I assumed I was OK to park there as I have always been a paying customer when using the carpark.

I wrote to Costa Coffee when I received the bailiff letter but they have not responded.

I have dated proof of a purchase from this visit to Costa Coffee on a bank statement, and as it was for work, I'm sure I have a receipt from my expenses claim.

I would be very grateful for advice on what to do next to avoid paying the £170 fine.

Thanks

https://imgur.com/a/DzbAaUJ

Thanks for replying. 

The original notice to keeper is here: https://imgur.com/a/TlCaKgy

This was the first letter that I received.  I also saw on an earlier post advice that you should ignore letters from DCBL Debt Collections Bailiffs Ltd but not from DCBLegal.

On the back it has timestamped images of my car arriving and leaving the car park, showing and under 10 minutes 'overstay'.

That’s not the notice to the keeper, which was originally sent by Parking Eye sometime after 17/7/24.

Whilst you should indeed ignore DCBL, you shouldn’t ignore the original notice from Parking Eye, but maybe you never received it. Is the V5C document for your car accurate?

OK, you received it, question about V5C no longer relevant.

The back of the notice to the keeper would be useful as well, does it mention the Protection of Freedoms Act? On the face of it it’s compliant to transfer liabilty from the driver to the keeper but only if it has the right words.

Wait for others to provide input before paying anything I suggest. I can’t myself see a magic get-out but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

I have at the back of mind a thought that Parking Eye only use DCBL for cases they think are hopeless, but I can’t substantiate that thought. If correct you ‘just’ have to endure the paperwork chain until they give up. Wait for better input!

You have three outcomes, all have downsides. Best option would have been to approach Costa when you got the PCN and got them to cancel it but it's probably too far along for that now.

1. Grit your teeth, pay it and get on with your life knowing it's sorted.

2. Sit tight, ignore the letters and wait for a claim form which may never arrive.

3. They issue a claim which may or may not get discontinued before they get to court.

Outcome 1 costs you now but get it sorted.

Outcome 2 doesn't cost you anything but you have it hanging around in the back of your mind.

Outcome 3 could potentially cost you more than £170 if it went to court and you lose, probably around £230 and you have the hassle of doing the paperwork, putting defence together etc.

Really depends on your appetite to push this through the system, and on the face of it without getting into the semantics you did breach the contract terms although there may be valid reasons why the contract isn't valid. The onus is on you to prove that with help from people here although some of the defences offered are highly theoretical and haven't been tested in court.

The protections of freedom act just bit just means they can hold the keeper liable if they don't know who the driver is (the contract is officially with the driver). There is no requirement for you to name the driver but they can hold you as keeper, liable if they have complied with the requirements of POFA.No doubt someone will be along in a minute to tell you the wording on Parking Eye PCNs isn't fully compliant with POFA but it's a very untested and technical defence and would need to be decided on by a judge.

Understood.