Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

My first post, so please be genlte with me

I have just recieved a debt recovery notice & subsequent final reminder from DCBL for a parking notice I recieved several years ago (approx 5 years). At the time I followed the recommend  course of action from the pepipoo community & they bascially went away/stopped chasing etc. As it was such a long time ago, I dont remember the details but can ikely dig up the background it it helps.

Looking at some of the previous similar issues on this forum, I can see the general view is to ignore these until they send an LBC I think its called.

Have attached PDF scans of both debt recovery letter & final reminder for ref if of any use.

I guess the question is, given the lapsed time since the original issue & now is, assume I do just ignore this unless they share anything remotely looking like a court claim etc?

All guidance gratefully recieved

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Generally the case, yes, stuff from DCBL as debt collectors can be ignored but a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal needs a response. It will also need a defence filing and, therefore, anything you can dig out, especially the original PCN, will be useful for this.

Thanks for the note. If/when I get a LBC, I will post here along with relevant background info - had a look & I still have the original scans!!

Just do a search of the forum for any other DCB Legal Letter of Claim (LoC). Look for any very recent ones and follow the same advice given in those.

You will eventually receive a claim anyway and as long as you defend it with the same advice in any of those threads, you wil not be paying a penny.

Does 'Claude' always write like it's generating clickbait content for an online tabloid? 

Errr... DCBL? Surely you mean DCB Legal, two separate legal entities. DCBL (Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd) are powerless debt collectors who, as a third party to any alleged contract breached by the driver, can only spout scary rubbish in the hope that the recipient is low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will simply pay up out of ignorance and fear.

DCB Legal, on the other hand, are firm of incompetent wannabe legals who suffer from intellectual malnourishment. No doubt they are very successful, thanks to the gullible tree being so ripe with low-hanging fruit, but as long as you are aware that they are simply a firm of bulk litigators who rely on precisely the same reasons as their sister company, DCBL, that the majority of the general public are so poorly educated about the civil legal procedure, they can afford to throw away the claim application fees in many tens of thousands of claims every year. A loss leader, if you like.

I have yet to test it, but I am confident that any low value claim issued by DCB Legal will be discontinued as long as it is defended, irrespective of what is actually in the defence. I honestly believe that if you simply entered a nursery rhyme as your defence, assuming an administrative judge didn't actually read it and strike the defence out under CPR 16.5, it would still be discontinued in due course by DCB Legal.

The 'Claude' analysis is far too confident on “withdrawal in 7–14 days / 90–95% chance of closure”. Treat that as speculation, not prediction.

DCB Legal will never 'withdraw' based my LoC template response or any other for that matter. If you receive an LoC from DCB Legal, you WILL eventually receive a claim from them too. It is a sad sate of affairs that the courts do not take PAPDC breaches more seriously in small claims. That doesn't mean you shouldn't respond to an LoC with what I suggest. It is your right to request the information and it puts the claimant to task.

The strange point here is that I don't really believe that DCB Legal are simply 'acting' on behalf of their client. I believe that they are issuing claims on behalf of their clients in a scattergun approach, knowing that there are enough low-hanging fruit out there to very comfortably offset any losses. Without actual sagas, it is difficult to give any precise numbers, but DCB Legal alone, issue claims in the hundreds of thousands every year. The vast majority of those result in either the defendant simply paying or, in most cases, going to default judgment because the defendant buries their head in the sand or screws up the process.

Nothing to worry about. Simply respond to their letter to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself with the following:

Subject: Your Letter of Claim – Ref: 711200292970SMP / Parking Charge Ref: TC60726593

Dear Ms Marth,

Thank you for your correspondence dated [insert date].

I dispute the alleged debt. Your reply letter does not comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC) and does not engage with the substantive issues raised. For clarity:

1) PAPDC non-compliance

Your reply fails to provide the information and documents required to enable me to understand, investigate, and respond to the claim:

• You do not clearly identify the cause of action (breach of contract / contractual sum / trespass / damages).
• The location details are incomplete in your letter, and no site plan is provided.
• You have not provided the contract/authority between your client and the landowner/occupier.
• You have not provided the terms relied upon (signage text as it stood on the material date) nor evidence that the terms were adequately brought to the attention of motorists.
• You have not provided the Notice to Driver/Notice to Keeper and any subsequent notices, nor evidence of compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sch. 4 (PoFA) if keeper liability is alleged.

Under PAPDC para. 2.1(c) and paras. 3.1 & 5.1, please now provide the following within 30 days so that the matter can be properly considered:
[indent[1. The full, unredacted landowner authority/contract in force on 08/05/2021, showing your client’s standing to issue charges and litigate.
2. The NTD/NTK and all subsequent correspondence, with proof of posting and dates, and a statement of PoFA compliance (or confirmation you rely only on driver liability).
3. Machine/payment data for the entire day (or the relevant time window), including VRM inputs, synchronisation settings, and any partial/mistyped VRMs; plus any ANPR/patrol logs relied upon.
4. Maintenance and ANPR calibration/accuracy logs for the period spanning 08/05/2021.
5. A full breakdown of the sum claimed, identifying each head of loss and when/why it was added.
6. Your client’s grace and consideration period policy in force on the material date and evidence of adherence to it.[/indent]

Pending receipt of the above, the PAPDC clock is not running. Please confirm the matter is placed on hold for at least 30 days after you provide the complete response and documents.

2) “Genuine pre-estimate of loss”

Your letter asserts that the amount represents a “genuine pre-estimate of loss.” That is wrong in law. Since ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, charges are assessed under the penalty/legitimate interest test, not on a pre-estimate of loss basis. Please ensure future correspondence is accurate.

3) Added “debt recovery” fees

Any sum added on top of the core charge (typically £100) for so-called “debt recovery” is unrecoverable and has been treated by courts as an abuse of process. Recent judicial commentary and decisions have repeatedly disallowed such add-ons. The current Private Parking Single Code of Practice (2025) also prohibits adding extra recovery fees beyond the core charge (save for fixed court fees/interest if awarded). I will invite the court to strike out or disallow any such add-ons.

4) Keeper liability / driver identity

Unless and until you demonstrate strict PoFA compliance, no keeper liability arises. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not admit to being the driver, and you have no evidence of driver identity.

5) Next steps

Once you have complied with the PAPDC and supplied the documents requested, I will provide a substantive response within 30 days. If you issue proceedings without remedying these defects, I will draw this correspondence to the court’s attention on the question of conduct and costs.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
[Address]
[Email]

You’re not “locked in” to paying anything.

Just do a search of the forum for any other DCB Legal Letter of Claim (LoC). Look for any very recent ones and follow the same advice given in those.

You will eventually receive a claim anyway and as long as you defend it with the same advice in any of those threads, you wil not be paying a penny.

You have to follow the process, for which you will get advice here, and DCB Legal will discontinue in the face of your doing so before having to pay the court fee.

As advised, search the forum for many similar cases.

Stop overthinking this and rushing in and FUBARing it. You have been advised that we will advise every step of the way and if you follow the advice, you will not have to pay a penny to anyone.

With an issue date of 3rd December, you have until 4pm on Monday 22nd December to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 5th January to submit your defence.

You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare 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

Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.

You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.

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 adequately 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 PD 16, para 7.3(1);

(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 submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. 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 due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.

AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.

AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).

ORDER:

1. The claim is struck out.

2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.