Hi all,
I'm helping a nervous friend out and wanted to see if I've advised correctly.
Car parked in Homebase on
11th September 2019. The keeper/and driver didn't appeal the initial PCNs and forgot about it till recent DCBL letters in November 2024. We played the ignore game to keep the time ticking.
Letter of Claim dated
20th March received.
The following appeal sent on
17th April.
Dear Sirs,
Your Ref. ############
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: DCB Legal Ltd
I acknowledge receipt of your Letter Before Claim.
The alleged debt is disputed, and I will vigorously defend any court proceedings should they be initiated.
The alleged incident in question dates back to 2019 at a Homebase car park that has since closed. I was not the driver at the time, and your client cannot hold me liable as the Notice to Keeper issued failed to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. Furthermore, the driver was acting as a carer for a Blue Badge holder who was undergoing cancer treatment in 2019, and the Blue Badge was correctly displayed at the time. (All pictures of blue badge with dates attached)
I am currently seeking independent debt advice and, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), I formally request that this matter be placed on hold for an additional 30 days.
Additionally, I note that the amount claimed has been significantly inflated. The Government has previously referred to such practices as "extorting money from motorists." Under the PAP, I request clarification on the following points:
Does the additional £70 charge represent a ‘Debt Recovery’ fee? If so, is this amount net or inclusive of VAT? If VAT is included, please explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT.
Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is your client claiming this amount as damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?
I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully,
Response from DCBL dated
8th MayWe write in response to your correspondence received in our office dated 17/04/2025.
We now respond to the same as follows.
The parking charge has been issued due to exceeding the maximum duration of stay permitted at the site. The signs on site would have clearly outlined the terms and conditions of the site.
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.
Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”) states “The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. For the purpose of the Act; “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper. The DVLA confirmed that you were the Registered Keeper at the time the parking charge was issued and as no transfer of liability has been received by our Client, they have the right to recover the parking charge from you as the Keeper of the vehicle.
The Parking Charge letter was issued to you on 18/09/2019. A copy is attached. You were afforded the opportunity to; appeal the parking charge, transfer liability to the driver (if it was not you) or make payment. Neither a successful appeal, nor an adequate nomination were received, yet payment remains outstanding.
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. However, in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis, it was found, both at County Court and Court of Appeal level, that appealing a Parking Charge on the basis that the amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss is, in fact, not a successful legal defence.
The sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by our Client as a result of your non-payment. Our Client’s employees have spent time and material attempting to recover the debt. This is not our Client’s usual business and the resources could have been better spent in other areas of the business. Had you of paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so the amount due would not have increased.
For the avoidance of doubt, the outstanding balance consists of £100.00 for the breach in contract as per the signage displayed on site, and £70.00 debt recovery fee.
The HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration manual’ (VATSC06140), confirmed that parking charge falls out of the scope of VAT.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I can confirm our Client would be agreeable to £70.00 in full and final settlement of this Claim. The current outstanding balance is £170.00.
You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment of £70.00. Failure to make payment may result in a Claim being issued against you without further reference.
Payment can be made via our website
www.dcblegal.co.uk, by calling our office on 0203 838 7038 or via bank transfer:
DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
Sort Code: 20-24-09
Account no: 60964441
When making payment please ensure you include the following reference number, 121960.11645D, to enable us to allocate it to the correct case.
Kind Regards,
Naieeda Haque
Administration Associate
DCB Legal Ltd
Tel: 0203 434 0433 | DX 23457 Runcorn
30 days from their letter brings us to 7th of June 2025. We will have a further 3 months till we are timed out. What else can we keep doing or should we expect the court letter and get ready to defend?
Thanks
