Author Topic: Euro Car Parks - DCBL Debt Recovery  (Read 5730 times)

0 Members and 243 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Euro Car Parks - DCBL Debt Recovery
« Reply #15 on: »
I'm happy to fight it if you're confident of a successful outcome. I have no idea so will follow the advice given.

Unless for any reason you'd suggest not to, I'd prefer to fight it myself as the driver, just to save my wife the hassle.

So I'll write to them again (as the RK) informing them of my details as the driver and then follow the advice given.

I am confident of the outcome as long as the advice provided is followed. However, it is not my money at risk. The odds of having to pay some money to ECP, if you follow the advice, around 1%.

Not sure if English is your first language, but what I assume you mean is that you, the Driver, are going to pretend to be your wife, the Keeper, and proud your name and address as the driver, in order to transfer liability away from your wife.

Th is OK but you are throwing on elf the useful defence points that could be relied on if this case falls into the 1% area of having to actually defend a claim, all the way to a hearing.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Euro Car Parks - DCBL Debt Recovery
« Reply #16 on: »
Hi all,

Returning to this as I've now received the letter from DCB Legal.

To fill you in on the full picture, I  contacted Euro Car Parks (as the RK) in between with the following:

"I have received a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd in relation to the above referenced parking charge notice.

As per the previous two letters sent to yourself (attached), I have informed you that I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.

Please instruct your client, DCBL, to cease further action with immediate effect and stop harassing me regarding this matter."


Their response was that their unable to accept the correspondence as the PCN had now been passed to DCBL.

What's my next step(s)?

Re: Euro Car Parks - DCBL Debt Recovery
« Reply #17 on: »
What is this "letter" you have received from DCB Legal? Is it a Letter of Claim (LoC)?

Any correspondence with DCBL was a total waste of time and effort, DCBL are simply powerless debt collectors and can do nothing except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

WE do not care and neither should you about anything that the bottom-dwelling DCBL have to say about anything. Just ignore them.

DCB Legal and DCBL are separate but related companies. Ignore DCBL. Tell us about anything that DCB Legal send you.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Euro Car Parks - DCBL Debt Recovery
« Reply #18 on: »
Yes, it's a Letter of Claim. Would it help if I uploaded a copy or are they pretty standard worded templates?

For clarity, I had no correspondence with DCBL. It was Euro Car Parks I wrote to.

Re: Euro Car Parks - DCBL Debt Recovery
« Reply #19 on: »
Yes, it's a Letter of Claim. Would it help if I uploaded a copy or are they pretty standard worded templates?
Yes, it would do no harm.

Re: Euro Car Parks - DCBL Debt Recovery
« Reply #20 on: »
Copy of letter received:

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Re: Euro Car Parks - DCBL Debt Recovery
« Reply #21 on: »
Simply respond by email with the following to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself:

Quote
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.

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]
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Euro Car Parks - DCBL Debt Recovery
« Reply #22 on: »
Many thanks. I shall do just that.

Appreciate your assistance.
Like Like x 1 View List

Re: Euro Car Parks - DCBL Debt Recovery
« Reply #23 on: »
Ok, so I have now received an email response from DCB Legal as follows:


Dear [redacted],

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office.

The parking charge has been issued as your vehicle was parked for longer than the maximum period allowed. 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.

The Notice to Keeper was issued to you on 27/04/2023. 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 Reminder Notice was issued to you on 27/05/2023. A copy is attached. This notice reiterated that payment was outstanding and confirmed that legal action may be taken, and additional costs incurred if the parking charge was not paid.

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.

If there are any documents or information that you have requested, but that are not enclosed, 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.

You now have 30 days from the date of this email/letter to make payment of £170.00. Failure to make payment will 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 [redacted] 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/.


Where do I go from here?

Re: Euro Car Parks - DCBL Debt Recovery
« Reply #24 on: »
Their response is inadequate:

PAPDC non-compliance: They refused core documents as “disproportionate,” contrary to paras 3.1, 5.1–5.2 (which require providing, or explaining unavailability of, requested material).
Liability not stated: No clear answer whether they pursue driver or keeper, nor whether PoFA Sch 4 is relied upon (and if so, how it is complied with).
Facts not particularised: No period of parking, timestamps, or evidence beyond a bare assertion of “overstay.”
No evidence of contract/signage: No landowner authority, no site plan, and no contemporaneous signage photographs/terms.
Quantum not explained: No proper breakdown of the £170; the £70 add-on lacks a pleaded legal/contractual basis and ignores PoFA 4(5)/CPR 27.14.
Legal misstatements: Reliance on GPEOL is obsolete post-Beavis; their VAT stance implies damages, inconsistent with “consideration for parking,” and they have not pleaded which it is.
Premature issue threat: They demand payment/issue within 30 days without first supplying the documents, contrary to the Protocol’s timetable.

I suggest you respond with the following:

Quote
Dear Sirs,

Re: Your response to Letter of Claim

Your reply does not comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. You have declined core documents as “disproportionate”. That is misconceived. Where documents are requested, the Protocol requires you to provide them or explain unavailability within 30 days (para 5.2), and to disclose information sufficient for the parties to understand each other’s position (paras 3.1 and 5.1). Please escalate this to a supervising solicitor with conduct of litigation and provide a Protocol-compliant response.

For the avoidance of doubt, please answer—clearly and in full—the following, and enclose the documents listed:

• Cause of action & status: Are you pursuing me as driver or keeper? Do you rely on PoFA 2012 Sch 4? If so, identify whether para 8 or 9 applies and confirm full compliance, including the period of parking relied upon (not merely entry/exit timestamps). Provide the evidence you will rely on.
• Signage & terms: A site plan showing sign locations extant at the material time; contemporaneous photographs of all signage (showing size, wording, prominence, and mounting height); the full set of terms you say formed the contract.
• Landowner authority: The contract (or contemporaneous chain of authority) authorising the operator to issue PCNs and to litigate in its own name.
• Quantum & calculation: A full breakdown of the sum claimed, with dates and heads of charge; copies of the NtK and all subsequent notices relied upon; ANPR maintenance/accuracy logs and grace/consideration period policies.
• £70 add-on: Identify the legal basis for the additional £70. If you contend it is a contractual sum, identify the contractual term and explain how it survives the small-claims costs cap and PoFA Sch 4, para 4(5) (keeper liability limited to the parking charge on the NtK). If you contend it is recovery/costs, explain how it avoids double recovery given CPR 27.14 and fixed costs.
• VAT treatment: Your reliance on HMRC manual VATSC06140 asserts the principal charge is outside the scope of VAT. That position is only coherent if you are pleading damages/penalty (not consideration). Please confirm whether the principal sum is pleaded as damages or as consideration for parking. If the latter, provide the VAT position (registration, rate, and VAT invoice).

Your letter’s reference to “genuine pre-estimate of loss” is inapposite. ParkingEye v Beavis re-framed the analysis around legitimate interest, not GPEOL. If you maintain reliance on Beavis, you will also be aware that the approved principal charge there was self-contained and did not include any invented “debt recovery” uplifts. Please set out your pleaded basis accordingly.

If you proceed without first complying with the Protocol, I will seek an immediate stay and sanctions for non-compliance under the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, paras 13–16, including costs.

On receipt of a compliant Letter of Claim that meets para 3.1 and encloses the Reply Form and Information Sheet, I will take stock and respond within 30 days. Until then, any threat to issue is premature.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Euro Car Parks - DCBL Debt Recovery
« Reply #25 on: »
Thanks again. Email sent.

Re: Euro Car Parks - DCBL Debt Recovery
« Reply #26 on: »
Back again...

Received the following email from DCB Legal today:

Quote
We write in response to your recent correspondence.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

To assist, our Client may be prepared to settle this case. I can confirm our Client would be agreeable to £60.00 in full and final settlement of this Claim. The current outstanding balance is £170.00.

Should you be agreeable to this offer, please confirm the same within 7 days. 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, [REDACTED], to enable us to allocate it to the correct case.

Upon receipt of the settlement sum of £60.00 we will update the Client that the matter has been settled. If you are not agreeable, we will continue to follow the Court process as normal and issue a Claim without further notice.

Do I assume this is them up against the ropes and trying desperately to get something out of it?

Is there a particular reply I should go back with now?

Re: Euro Car Parks - DCBL Debt Recovery
« Reply #27 on: »
Yes.
You can reply if you want, but if you do nothing they will discontinue. It’s normal for them.

Re: Euro Car Parks - DCBL Debt Recovery
« Reply #28 on: »
It's a standard precursor to their discontinuance. Personally, if it were me, I would send the following, but it's up to you:

Quote
WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

Claim no: [Claim No] – Euro Car Parks Ltd v [defendants full name]

1. Your [date] letter states you “will issue a Claim without further notice”. The claim was issued on [issue date].

2. To dispose of the matter efficiently, I make the following WPSATC offer:
(a) You file and serve Form N279 by 4pm on [date—give 7 days, and before the £27 hearing fee date].
(b) You pay £60 to me within 14 days of service of the N279, by bank transfer to: [details], ref: [case ref].
(c) The parties will invite the court to make no order as to costs on discontinuance; the £60 is a private contribution to my time and expense.

3. If you decline or ignore this offer and later discontinue, I will rely on CPR 27.14(2)(g), the White Book notes to r.27.14, and recent authority emphasising proper conduct of litigation (including Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)) in support of an application for my costs occasioned by your unreasonable conduct.

4. This offer is open until 4pm on [same date as 2(a)], after which it will be withdrawn.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Euro Car Parks - DCBL Debt Recovery
« Reply #29 on: »
Ok thanks. I'll give that a shot.

Just to clarify - the "issue date" for point 1 - is that the date the original PCN was issued?

Also the date for 2a - do I just put 7 days from today? I'm not sure what the £27 hearing fee date is that you refer to.