Free Traffic Legal Advice

Received this letter today of a final warning

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I have. No responses as of yet

Nothing you have shown us makes any difference to anything. However, I would suggest you take much more care to redact your personal information and VRM as you are easily identifiable from what you’ve shown us.

The lease company did not correctly transfer liability to you. This is evidenced by your earlier evidence of their mention of TE7 and TE9 forms they expected you to complete that are not relevant to private parking charges. Had the lease company correctly transferred liability to you as the Hirer, that would have been the end of the matter as far as the lease company was concerned.

Had the correct procedure been followed, both by the lease company and ECP, a Notice to Hirer (NtH) would have been issued to you, in your own name. Together with that NtH, should have been a copy of the NtK, a copy of a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement, a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

None of that has happened. Without any of the above having taken place, you cannot be liable as the Hirer. Only the driver can be liable and, unless you’ve told ECP the identity of the driver, inadvertently or otherwise, they have no idea or proof of who the driver is. They are not allowed to assume or infer you must be the driver because you are the Hirer.

So, for now, you continue to ignore the useless debt demands from any debt collectors. The debt collectors are powerless to do anything. You were advised very early on to ignore them. We do not need to see their useless letters.

You were never the Registered Keeper (RK) of the vehicle. You were only ever the Hirer. You may or may not have been the driver but that is not for you to prove. There is no legal obligation on the Hirer to identify the driver. The burden of proof is on ECP to prove the Hirer was also the driver. They can’t unless the Hirer tells them, which you’ve been told you are under no obligation to do.

This is what is going to happen.. . You are eventually going to receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB Legal (not DCBL). After that, you will receive an N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC. We will provide advice on how to respond to those.

The claim will be defended and eventually, the claim will be discontinued. That will then be the end of the matter.

So, ignore all debt recovery letters. Show us the LoC and then the Claim Form when you receive them for further advice.

Reply with the following:

Dear Sirs,

Re: Letter of Claim dated [Date]

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 obligations:

[YOUR 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 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,


[YOUR NAME]

Save as a PDF file and attach to an email addressed to info@dcblegal.co.uk and also CC in yourself.

It makes a huge difference. If ECP hold two possible addresses for you, you can guarantee that they are likely to send any litigation correspondence to the wrong address and you would be in danger of getting a CCJ by default because you did not respond.

You must send a Data Rectification Notice (DRN) to the ECP DPO. Instruct them to update their records with your current address for service and erase your old address.

The highlighted words are there for a reason so make sure you use them.

It doesn't matter. Send the DRN. The operator got your out of date DVLA data. The debt recovery agent did a simple credit reference agency search and obtained your current address.

Unless you want to risk a default CCJ and the whole process of trying to get it set aside at some future date, just do as advised. Overthinking it is not going to change anything.

It's DCB Legal, not to be confused with their sister debt recovery company, DCBL.

You now wait for the claim. However, you can now report DCB Legal and their client to HMRC for suspected VAT-related misconduct.

Despite claiming that the £70 surcharge reflects actual debt recovery costs, they also assert that no VAT is applicable to the full £170. If this additional £70 represents a genuine service (debt recovery), it would ordinarily be subject to VAT—unless the party levying it is falsely categorising it as part of a VAT-exempt penalty charge.

You can report suspected VAT fraud directly to HMRC via their secure online service here: https://www.gov.uk/report-vat-fraud

Ensure you include all relevant details, such as:

[/indent]• The names of the parties involved (DCB Legal Ltd and the parking operator);
• A copy or summary of the correspondence asserting the £170 charge;
• The context in which the surcharge is added and how VAT is being avoided or misrepresented.[/indent]

HMRC will not update you on the outcome, but your report may prompt an investigation into whether VAT is being properly declared on alleged ‘debt recovery’ services.