Free Traffic Legal Advice

You can safely ignore DCBL. They are powerless to do anything except to try and scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear. They are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver. Use their letters as kindling. Ignore them.

Whilst you may have subsequently update your V5C, NGPM can only make a single request to the DVLA for the Keepers data and that would have been within a few days of the alleged contravention. So, NGPM hold an out of date address. DCBL did a simple credit reference search and found your current address and have sent you a useless debt collector letter.

You cannot leave NGPM with a choice of two addresses for you. You can guarantee that should they try to litigate, they will use the old address and you will have no idea that a claim was made until you discover a CCJ that was issued by default, later on. Your immediate concern is to send NGPM a Data Rectification Notice (DRN) to their DPO instructing them to update their records with your current address for service and to erase your old address. The highlighted words are there for a reason and you should use them in your DRN.

That will ensure that you don't fall foul of NGPM trying to get a CCJ by default. If they have the correct address for you, I can say with greater that 99% certainty that should this ever go as far as a county court claim, it would never reach a hearing and would be discontinued as long as it is defended.

However, that is a long way off, if ever happening. As it is now too late to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), the only other way to get it looked at as an appeal would be to send NGPM a formal complaint as they are required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 11.2 to consider any complaint as an appeal if it appears to be one.

Before that though, we need to establish whether the vehicle was permitted to be parked in the disabled bay in the first place. It is not necessary for the driver to have a blue badge, only that an occupant of the vehicle has a blue badge. Was this the case or did the driver simply ignore any signs that made it clear that it was a disabled bay for blue badge holders only? Or does the driver have a protected characteristic that is recognised under the Equality Act 2010?

Whilst we cannot condone the use of a disability accessible bay by someone who is not authorised to do so and the fact that the Keeper has received a PCN because of the drivers ill thought actions, as the Keeper, you can rest assured that as this progresses, it will most likely lead to a county court claim for the alleged debt.

This is a good thing. Why? Because the claim is going to be filed by DCB Legal (not DCBL) and any claim filed by them, as long as it is defenced, is eventually discontinued.

For now, we do not need to know about ay debt collector letters from the likes of DCBL. They are powerless to do anything and you must ignore them.

Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) issued by DCB Legal.

See here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations

It's a common tactic from the robo recovery companies, they will file a claim so that you receive a notice from the courts, as they know that this makes people pay straight away. They obviously can't send people to thousands of court cases so they discontinue when they have to pay money to the courts to proceed.

Hi, For completeness I just wanted to update that I have received a further two letters and have ignored as instructed.

Respond to the LoC as follows in an email addressed to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself:

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].

If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. The initial Notice to Keeper was not received, as I had moved address and the V5C logbook had not yet been updated with the DVLA at the time of the alleged contravention. As such, no PoFA-compliant NtK was served within the timeframes required by paragraph 9(5) of the Act. Even if your client were to issue or re-send a copy now, it would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to establish keeper liability.

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,

[Your name]

They said they couldn't find the case and have replied below, I guess I should comply?

Why wouldn't you?

Show us the claim form. Do not fill in any paperwork sent with it.