Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear community
I just received my first ever DCB Legal LoC for a PCN 3 years ago. So here I am. I dont recall receiving this PCN by post so this came as a surprise.

Dear community,

I just received a LoC from DCB legal after 3 years. I dont recall receiving any PCN for the same and we are usually thorough with our mails. So this came as a surprise. Any help on how to go about this would be appreciated. I am attaching the image URLs which includes 1. DCB legal letter of claim (front page and back page)
2. The original PCN
3. Picture of car entry and exit time.

In the contravention details it only mentions “insufficient paid time” it does not mention whether the driver has paid any amount at all for any period of time.



 

The best replies to DCB Legal were wrote by b789, unfortunately he/she is no longer posting.

Do a search in the box for DCB Legal
This is one of the replies that was suggested.
Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C].

As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)

Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.
7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.
11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully,

Contravention date 08/01/2023
Issue date 31/01/2023

Assuming this to be the original PCN, if the driver is not identified and the original poster is the registered keeper and the car’s V5C was up to date, then it is issued too late to transfer liability to the registered keeper under PoFA 2012, as @DWMB2 has already observed.

Your simpler reply can follow the Practice Directions:

The reply should include confirmation as to whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of the claim are disputed

The notice to keeper has to be sent to arrive within 14 days in order to be able to transfer liability from the (unknown) driver to the registered keeper. From the dates above, with the caveats above, this notice was not sent in time.

Read the link in @DWMB2’s post to the legislation.

9(4) and 9(5) in particular.

(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

Personally, I think that’s a bit over the top.

It won’t make any difference anyway.

Your second paragraph is incorrect. I can’t see anywhere in the LoC where an Issue Date of 8/1 is mentioned.

I would simply say that the claim is not accepted and will be defended in full because the registered keeper can not be held liable under PoFA 2012 when the Notice to Keeper is issued 23 days after the alleged parking event, and the driver has not been identified.

Check the caveats I gave earlier also, that you are the registered keeper and the car’s V5C is accurate.

If you prefer your version, please check your second paragraph.

Thanks for correcting me, I missed this.

Don’t.
Come back with the N1SDT court claim form, obscuring personal details and the password.
Search the forum for many, many DCB Legal cases to see that they usually discontinue in the face of a defence, which you have.