dcbl - final notice of Debt Recovery

I have received letter from DCBL notifying me that failure to pay £170 has resulted in them recommending to their client that they start legal action, the cost of which will be added to the debt.

Their client is ParkingEye Limited and the parking ticket is from Oct 2022 and was issued for parking without a ticket in a Marriott Hotel carpark in England.

Some background -
1. The vehicle is a lease car and the lease company is the registered keeper.
2. The vehicle was parked in the carpark with the agreement from the hotel that during our stay the parking was included

It took some time for us to receive the parking ticket from Parking Eye as it went to the lease company first and then was forwarded on to us (along with a fee from lease company for their services).

Representations were made vie email to Parking Eye in Jun 2023 but the reply came back saying the case had already been passed on to DCBL.
Parking Eye did say they had passed on my appeal to DCBL so I waited to hear from them.

I received a demand for payment in Nov 2023 from DCBL and in response I emailed them saying the ticket was given in error and forwarded them my correspondence with Parking Eye.

I heard nothing back from them and assumed the matter was concluded.

The next letter we received was Dec 2024, over a year later, stating it was a Final Demand for payment. 

I phoned them this time to try and explain but was told that no appeal could be made because it had been passed on to them.
Parking eye say they can't do anything because it's been passed to DCBL although DCBL are saying they will recommend their client (presumably Parking Eye) begin legal action.

Is there anything I can do at this time or am I going to have to appear in court to fight this?

Thanks for any advice you can give me.

Did you receive a Notice to Hirer in your own name? If so post it up; it's unlikely PE have complied with the requirements. In your communications with PE did you admit that you were the driver?

dcbl are meaningless debt collectors who have no powers. you can safely ignore them.
you should only look out for letters from
"dcb legal" (not the same as dcbl)
anything that is titled LoC letter of claim and more importantly anything from the court.

You probably blew away your best defence by identifying the driver. For future reference, the driver and the Hirer are two separate legal entities and should remain so. The parking company and the lease company have no idea of the drivers identity. As this was a leased vehicle, I can guarantee that the process for passing liability from the Keeper (the lease company) to the Hirer was not followed correctly, meaning that ParkingEye could not have passed liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known Keeper.

However, if the Hirer has blabbed the drivers identity to ParkingEye, inadvertently or otherwise, then the point is moot.

Your saving grace is that ParkingEye know they are on shaky ground with this charge which is why they have palmed it off to DCBL to try and scare you into paying it. They are hoping you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will capitulate and pay up out of ignorance and fear.

If you don't pay up, you will eventually receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB Legal (not DCBL) followed eventually by an N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC. This is a good thing because it means that as long as the claim is defended, it will ultimately be discontinued and that will be the end of the matter.

For now, as long as you ignore all the useless debt collector threats and follow the advice, you won't be paying a penny. DCBL is not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver and so you must ignore their threats. They are powerless to do anything. Use their letters as kindling. Never ever, ever EVER communicate with a powerless debt collector.

FOr now, you wait and tell us when you receive an loC. Eventually, when the claim form arrives, show us the Particulars of Claim (PoC) and make sure that all dates on the form are visible and we will provide instruction on how to submit the Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) and will provide a suitable defence.

I can say with greater than 99.9% certainty that the claim will eventually be discontinued.

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Not sure I ever identified the driver i.e. specified a name.  My wife and I both use the vehicle, the lease is in her name and I've been dealing with the correspondence with dcbl and parking eye.  Does that change things?

In the mean time I will ignore until we see something from dcb legal or the court.

thanks again.

AS long as you are doing everything in the name of the Hirer, it is not a problem if you do all the work. It cannot be in your name if you are not the named Hirer.

Whilst you may not have named the driver, you may have inadvertently given away the drivers identity if you are not careful in any correspondence/appeal. For example, if you put "I did this or that", then you have outed yourself (the named Hirer) as the driver. Whereas if you simply refer to the driver in the third person, nothing is given away, such as "The driver did this and that".

Today I received a letter of claim for this ticket, still demanding £170 but now it's from dcblegal ltd.  What should my course of action be?

Send a short response, as described at https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1,

the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14 days in a straightforward case and no more than 3 months in a very complex one. 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

but don't go to huge effort or write some huge tome because they will ignore your response and you're only doing it as part of a formal paper trail.

There are also sample responses to DCB Legal Letters of Claim on this site if you search for them. Just don't go overboard in your response.

Since it's a year and a half or more since you last engaged, think about what you will put in your defence which you will need to file in due course.

DCB Legal usually bring county court claims but discontinue in the face of a proper defence.

Thanks for the continued advice on this subject.  I sent a brief response as advised and then received the following via email.

Dear *****

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office.
We now respond to the same as follows.

It is our position that the Letter of Claim ("LOC") is compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims ("the Protocol"). The LOC provides adequate information for you to identify the debt that our Client is seeking to recover. We respectfully draw your attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to act reasonably and proportionately.

This correspondence relates to a parking contravention; please find the relevant details below:

PCN No. - *******

Location (“Land”) - Marriott Hotels Regents Park

VRN - ********

Issue Date - 08/10/2022

Reason for Issue - Vehicle Remained on Private Property in Breach of the Prominently Displayed Terms and Conditions


In order to identify the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, our client submitted a request for details to the DVLA. Your details were provided and thereafter notices were sent to you by our client at your serviceable address. Those notices asked you to either make payment or, if you were not driving, nominate a driver by providing their name and full address. You did neither and as such you are now pursued on the basis that you were driving. On the balance of probabilities, if you were not the driver, you would have nominated.

When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract and agreeing to the terms by parking and staying on the site. Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract. In this instance, the parking charge was issued because the Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms and Conditions.

Our client will ensure that there are signs clearly displayed on the land, outlining the terms of the parking. These will generally be displayed at the entrance and exit of the land/ car park, as well as being positioned at various points throughout the land. Our client does not need to prove that you read and understood the terms of those signs and will rely on the fact that the signs were situated on the land and that a reasonable person would have seen them. You should always be vigilant when entering any land that you are not familiar with or that you know is privately owned and there are parking terms in place.

The amount owed is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location to ensure compliance with the clearly displayed terms and conditions.

Where the Parking Charge has become overdue, a reasonable sum may be added in respect of debt recovery costs. As payment was not made, either within 14 or 28 days, the creditor was entitled to instruct debt recovery agents / Solicitors to pursue payment and is entitled to recover the costs of doing so. It would have been made clear in the terms and conditions set out in the signs that additional enforcement costs may be incurred in the event of non-payment.

The recovery fees applied are appropriate and will not be removed. As such, the outstanding balance of £170.00 remains payable in order to prevent further action.

Please note the timeframe in which to appeal the Parking Charge has expired. You were given the opportunity to lodge an appeal when the initial Notice was issued to you. Given that the case has been escalate to this firm for recovery action, the time to appeal has now elapsed and payment of the PC is now required.

If there are any documents that you have requested, but that are not attached, it is because we have deemed the request to be disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute. We respectfully draw your attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to act reasonably and proportionately.

We note that despite your points of dispute, there is an absence of any evidence in support of the same so that we may consider this with our client, namely evidence that supports that the vehicle was authorised on the date of contravention.

You now have 30 days from the date of this email to submit evidence/make payment of £170.00. Failure to do either 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 (711201508778PEL) 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,

Is this an appropriate response to the above email? 

Dear Ms Msani,

Thank you for your response. I continue to dispute the alleged debt in full.

The vehicle was a leased vehicle. The leasing company—not I—was the registered keeper at the material time. Your assertion that the DVLA provided my details therefore appears to be incorrect. Please identify precisely:

1. Whose details the DVLA supplied to ParkingEye;
2. When and from whom ParkingEye subsequently obtained my details;
3. Whether I am being pursued as driver, keeper or hirer; and
4. The documents and evidence relied upon for that asserted status.

Your email states that I am being pursued as the driver because no driver was nominated. No admission regarding the driver’s identity has been made. An assertion based upon non-nomination does not establish who was driving. If your client alleges that I was the driver, please disclose the evidence upon which that allegation is based.

Alternatively, if your client seeks to impose liability upon me as the vehicle’s hirer, please provide:

* the Notice to Keeper sent to the leasing company;
* the leasing company’s response;
* the statement and hire documents supplied under paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012;
* the Notice to Hirer allegedly served upon me;
* proof of the date on which it was served; and
* copies of every document that accompanied it.

The two ANPR photographs supplied demonstrate only that the vehicle entered and exited the car park. They do not establish the driver’s identity or any contractual breach.

Your stated reason—“Vehicle Remained on Private Property in Breach of the Prominently Displayed Terms and Conditions”—still does not identify the actual conduct alleged. Please state the specific term allegedly breached and whether the allegation concerns payment, vehicle registration, duration of stay or some other matter.

The vehicle was parked during an authorised hotel stay after the hotel confirmed that parking was included. I am obtaining the relevant hotel records. ParkingEye is invited to verify the booking and parking authorisation directly with Marriott and cancel the charge.

You have not supplied the contemporaneous signage, the requested evidence of ParkingEye’s authority, the original notices, the hire-document chain or an itemised calculation of the £170. A general statement that unspecified requests have been deemed disproportionate does not explain why each relevant document has been withheld.

Please provide the outstanding information and documents. In accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, no proceedings should be commenced until at least 30 days after the requested documents have been supplied.

Yours sincerely,