Free Traffic Legal Advice

The driver received a "Notice of Debt Recovery" letter from dcbl (Direct Collections Bailiffs Ltd) about an unpaid Parking Charge of £160.00 on 15 August relating to an alleged offence on 19 June 2023.

They had parked outside the business they was visiting and entered their car reg and name onto the company's digital system (there is evidence of this).

When the driver called dcbl, dcbl said they had sent out previous letters - which had gone to the driver's previous address which they left 3 years ago.  (The driver had not updated my log book -  didn't know that they had to).  They have since updated my log book.

There is no photographic evidence given in the letter from dcbl.  The driver does not think they were in an unauthorised zone.

The letter states "you are no longer able to appeal the penalty charge.  Your next opportunity to dispute the charge would be if the matter was taken to court" The driver called Bank Park Mgmt Ltd but could not get through so then emailed to appeal and to ask for photographic evidence.

Can anyone advise what the legal situation is here?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Can anyone advise what my legal situation is here?

The situation is that they are alleging that you owe them £160 as liquidated damages for breach of a contract.

If they take you to court and can prove (on the balance of probabilities) that you as the driver (or vicariously as keeper if they can prove that they satisfied the requirements of the PoFA 2012) were in breach of such a contract and that such a penalty is commercially justified, then they may well be found to be entitled to recover the £100 (plus lodging fee, etc.).

The fact that private "Parking Charge Notices" so closely mimic local authority "Penalty Charge Notices" is largely irrelevant other than to give an indication of the integrity of the people you are dealing with.

The fact that you moved house without updating your V5C is your problem. Essentially it means that it is your fault that you didn't receive the initial threatograms and cannot readily establish whether they are entitled to hold you liable as keeper.

Contracts for parking are usually formed by performance - all things being equal (and they are not always equal) if there is clear signage ("there to be seen") setting out the terms of a contractual offer for parking, you are deemed to have accepted the offer by parking there.
The starting point of any contractual dispute is likely to involve the terms of the contract - what did the signs say?

They thought that the fact they had signed in to the company's parking register was evidence that they were  not committing an offence.

Whether or not the driver contravened the terms isn't currently clear, without knowing what the terms are. It may be the case, for example, that registering on the terminal allows one to park for 2 hours, but the driver parked for 3. Or it may be the case that no terms were contravened, and there has been some sort of malfunction somewhere...

The response to the SAR, and photos of the signs, should help to determine this.

You're the one doing the Subject Access Request, as the vehicle's keeper.

They have a month to respond to the SAR, so no need to panic if you don't get a response within a few days.

If you've already revealed who was driving in relation to this charge in correspondence with Bank, then there's no longer any benefit to hiding it either on here or to them.