Free Traffic Legal Advice

I paid for 2 hours at Beckett St hospital car park but, only 4 characters of my VRN were entered.I Park Services want £100 as I appealed with the IAS due to it seeming predatory to uphold such strict terms for a hospital carpark so lost a £20 offer (will just pay this next time). My deadline to pay is 4 July, inclined to pay £100 but seems unjust. Should I sit tight for a Letter Before Claim or just pay?

Details as follows:

Parking company: I Park Services Ltd (IPC member)
Location: Beckett Street hospital car park, Leeds
Date of event: 7 May 2025
NTK received: 9 May 2025
Input error: only the first four characters of the VRN
Fee paid: 2-hour tariff (ticket kept)
Visit reason: hospital appointment

Timeline

7 May: paid for 2 hours; entered only the first four VRN characters

9 May: £100 NTK issued for “No valid payment”

14 May: internal appeal (ticket + explanation) offered reduced rate of £20.

15 May: Appealed with IAS.

20 May: IAS appeal lodged (ticket proof; cited IPC §15.7 and CRA 2015)

28 May: IAS appeal dismissed.

29 May: I offered £20 without prejudice to settle the  (IPC §§14.5 and 15.7)

30 May: I Park reply: “unable to accept £20; charge £100;" refused any further correspondence.

5 Jun: I emailed the hospital parking service and they replied that its private land run by I Park; so trust cannot help.

Current: £100 deadline 4 July.

3 Key points in my favour
Full tariff paid: operator suffered no loss

IPC Code v9 §15.7: genuine key-entry error with payment should be capped at £20

Consumer Rights Act 2015: penalties must be fair and proportionate; £100 is excessive

IAS appeal removed the Code’s £20 option – feels anti-consumer, especially for hospital visitors


Should I hold firm and wait for a Letter Before Claim, or pay the £100 now?
How likely would they be to follow it up with a small claims preceding and how likely would I be to win in a small claims court. I feel I have a pretty good standing but am receiving a lot of different advice.

Evidence linked: https://postimg.cc/gallery/NmfWYLS

Any guidance welcome!

I Park Services are easy to beat. They use DCB Legal to issue their claims and any claim issued by DCB Legal, as long as it is defended will be discontinued.

Suggesting that you pay even £20 is foolish. Follow the advice and you won't pay a penny.

Ignore everything from now on unless it is Letter of Claim (LoC) or an actual claim. You can safely ignore all debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

Thanks for the advice!

Quote from: b789 on July 01, 2025, 03:29:49 pm

Suggesting that you pay even £20 is foolish.

OP - in your case, as you have discovered, we're past the £20 stage, but as above, I Park can nearly always be beaten.

How would I Park be beaten in my case?

Quote from: FeelinRighteous on July 01, 2025, 11:53:59 am

Full tariff paid: operator suffered no loss

You'd still need to extinguish Beavis for that.  Some Judges (if it gets that far) may not blink at £100.  Remember if they call it will be in the £250 region by the time they've added mythical charges.

I've seen online that often the additional charges can be dropped too? And would the new ruling on £20 being offered show that this is the proportionate sum for a keying error?

Is it a benefit to my case that I was on my way to a pretty intense medical appointment? I also have diagnosed ADHD which makes me prone to error, particularly under stress (I have proof of appointment and diagnosis.

There's a lot of research into how acute stress can lead to higher rates of human error (30-40%), ADHD which makes human error rate even higher (around 1.5x). There's also a lot of studies showing high anxiety before the type of appointment that I was having. So in essence from a scientific point of view, I was very likely to make a keying error in this state (almost a 50/50 chance). I-Park are well aware their carpark is used by the hospital patients, so their rigidity on the matter seems almost predatory and could be considered exploiting individuals, which is against the consumer rights act? Seeing as their ticket machines offer no indicator to users that they have not keyed in an entire VRN, they haven't provided sufficient assistance to the individuals using their carpark.

I feel like it's a pretty dramatic argument but could help, I could email that to them as I imagine they want to avoid anything to do with this kind of thing? Didn't add any of this to my appeal.

By their own logic, seeing a sign is entering into a contract, they know they are dealing with vulnerable individuals asa the hospital is clearly signed.

The modus operandi for DCB Legal is to issue a claim, irrespective of reason. They submit hundreds of thousands of claims every year. Around 95% of those claims end up being a judgment in default. It's an incredible statistic but a very profitable one for them.

The ones that we advise on here and over on MSE and defended, are a drop in the ocean to them. As long as the claim is defended, irrespective of the quality of that defence, it is discontinued or struck out.

They really on the fact that the low hanging-fruit on the gullible tree will either ignore it or pay up out of ignorance and fear. So, don't try and overthink this. It is a known process and you are not going to be the first one that is different.

Okay great, and the default judgment is in favour of the defendant in that 95%?

You're misunderstanding slightly. They issue thousands of claims every year - a very large proportion of those are ignored by the recipients, meaning the parking companies win by default. When they're making so much money out of the ones that don't put up a fight, they have comparatively little appetite to expend much time and cost with the few that do put up a fight, so discontinue these. The few that do go to hearings tend to be outliers, or claims involving several PCNs, where the potential gain is much larger.

Just wait for the LoC and then show us.

Ignore everything from DCBL.
Come back when you get a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal.

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

Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim Ref: [reference number]

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client places reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please provide:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012 liability.

2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between your client and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s) in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with a site plan showing the sign locations.

3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.

4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to litigate.

5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes VAT.


I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own obligation under paragraph 6(b).

If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and will raise a formal complaint to the SRA regarding your conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).

Until your client complies and provides the requested material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling provision of the above.

For the avoidance of doubt, my full legal name is [Full Name]. Please correct your records.

Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will only respond by email or post.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]