Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi,

As the registered keeper, I received a letter of claim from dcb legal on 20/03/25. The parking charge is from G24 and dates back to April 2020, during lockdown. I have the original PCN and the usual chain of follow on letters. I  refused to pay after reading the advice on here so I have responded to the LOC with the same template letter that other posters were advised to send.  I believe I have grounds to defend the charge, I have photos of the carpark signage from 2020, I will upload any docs and photos when I've worked out how but in the meantime, can anyone advise me on what to expect next in the process. Thanks

Hi
I’ve uploaded the original PCN from 2020 and the letter of claim from DCBLegal. I’ve added a couple of pictures of the confusing signage, and the non existing signage at one of the entrances of the car park (as it was at the time) The other entrance had a sign indicating the use of ANPR but nothing about the conditions of parking. This car park remained open during the lockdown, they could’ve closed it or put up signage saying no parking was allowed, instead they continued to send out PCNs to everyone who used it saying the permitted parking time was 0 mins.
As I mentioned, I responded to the letter of claim on 31/03/25. What will happen next and how can I defend this if they continue with the court claim? Thank you.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

This response as advised by a member …

By email to: info@dcblegal.co.uk

31/03/2025

Dear Sirs,

Re: Letter of Claim dated 20th March 2025

I refer to your Letter of Claim.

I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection

(My address)

Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.

I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.

Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:

1. Does the additional £70 per PCN represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.

2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?

I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.

I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.

Yours faithfully,

Ok thanks, I’ll come back for advice then.

The two side-by-side signs in your photo are contradictory e.g. one states 60 minutes while the other states 2 hours etc.

Were they situated together or have you created this using photoshop techniques?

So you received the PCN...and then did what?

If nothing, then the 'unreasonable behaviour' to which your LoC response referred would likely be applied to you.

What's the timeline of notices, letters and general correspondence over the 5 years?

IMO, your strongest argument is that 6 years is not a target, it's a ceiling and that if the creditor possessed all the necessary evidence to pursue the keeper in a timely manner then this case should have been brought earlier.

Rather than paraphrasing the response from DCB Legal, you could provide the full content.

There rest of the advice about waiting for the inevitable N1SDT Claim Form still stands.

There is no reason to go into the minutiae of any details as the defence will be solely based on the failure of the claimant to comply with CPR 16.4. Don't waste any more effort as this will never reach a hearing and will either be struck out oro discontinued.

The signs were separate but in the same carpark, I just put them together on the photo.

Neither states '0' minutes, neither are they consistent.

I have the original PCN and the usual chain of follow on letters.

And these would be what and when?

I like to think that if this was pursued by the claimant then you would have a substantive defence against the alleged breach.