Author Topic: Parking Charge from DCBL 12 min Over Stay  (Read 2141 times)

0 Members and 18 Guests are viewing this topic.

Parking Charge from DCBL 12 min Over Stay
« on: »
Hi All i could do with some help.

I have been reading a lot of the posts but would like some help please from you amazing people

Case: The driver parked at a local retail park in under "Highview Parking LTD" and stayed over the time by 12mins, The driver is a pensioner and struggles to walk around fast. Now initially before i got involved the driver had already appealed the PCN, The appeal was not won and lowered to £60, The driver sent a cheque of the costs after the rejection of appeal online, and they then sent the driver a letter explaining that the cheque had been cut up and destroyed and that they are now not accepting this payment as it did bear the cost on the amount which it clearly did, and now the charge has been passed to DCBL and is now at a whopping £155.00 oh the joy lol.

The original letter was binned after cheque was sent so we don't have that sorry.

There is now two letters from DCBL been delivered one attached which is the second letter, I told the driver to ignore the first letter from DCBL and now i have told the driver not to do anything either with the second yet, and this is why i am here to ask what we should do next if you lovely people can help.

The driver struggles to walk around and is also a pensioner, so 12 mins over stay as you can imagine is grinding me to the max.

What advice could you give us on this as our next moves.

Kind Regards
Craig

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
« Last Edit: June 07, 2025, 09:54:06 pm by Craig1973 »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: Parking Charge from DCBL 12 min Over Stay
« Reply #1 on: »
It's a pity that an offer to pay was made as that admits liability. However, not to worry... as this is going eventually lead to a court claim, issued by DCB Legal, we will advise on how to deal with it and provide a suitable defence and advice all the ay through the process which will eventually end when the claim is either struck out or discontinued.

No one pays a penny to anyone represented by DCB Legal (not DCBL, their sister company).

The person you are assisting is very lucky they did not cash the cheque and they are now going to be £60 better off than they would have been. It will just take time but we will be here to assist.

Never, ever enter into communication with a useless debt recovery company. They are powerless to do anything except to try and make the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear. All debt collectors can be safely ignored.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Love Love x 1 View List

Re: Parking Charge from DCBL 12 min Over Stay
« Reply #2 on: »
Hi all

Hope you can help again

This has now been received, What would our next step or response be

Thank you


Re: Parking Charge from DCBL 12 min Over Stay
« Reply #3 on: »
It's just another useless debt recovery letter. You can safely disregard it.

Eventually, DCB Legal will send you a Letter of Claim (LoC). Come back when you receive that.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Parking Charge from DCBL 12 min Over Stay
« Reply #4 on: »
It's just another useless debt recovery letter. You can safely disregard it.

Eventually, DCB Legal will send you a Letter of Claim (LoC). Come back when you receive that.

Thank you so much :)

Re: Parking Charge from DCBL 12 min Over Stay
« Reply #5 on: »
Hi Again

We have now received a lovely letter from the DCBL teams which now states "LOC"

I hope you can guide us on the next steps of action required by us.

I can't see any way of contacting them as this has been a letter in post all the time, So do we if we have to reply is it by post.

I can't seem to be able to add a photo anymore of the letter.

Thank you again

Craig
« Last Edit: September 09, 2025, 11:38:32 am by Craig1973 »

Re: Parking Charge from DCBL 12 min Over Stay
« Reply #6 on: »

Re: Parking Charge from DCBL 12 min Over Stay
« Reply #7 on: »
With regards to the LoC, you should respond robustly with something along these lines, which you send by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and you also CC yourself:

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

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.

As a firm of supposed solicitors, one would expect you to be capable of crafting a letter that aligns 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 do not exist for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.

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

Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when your side declines to furnish the very document it purports to enforce.

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. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that confirms any PoFA 2012 liability
2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between your client and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date, not a generic stock image
3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon that you allege to have been breached
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce
5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT

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: Parking Charge from DCBL 12 min Over Stay
« Reply #8 on: »
Thank you again

Regards
Craig

Re: Parking Charge from DCBL 12 min Over Stay
« Reply #9 on: »
We have had a response.

Your help and advice once again would be very grateful 🙏

Dear xxxxxx

We write in response to your recent correspondence in response to our Letter of Claim (LOC) and will now respond as follows.

Location: Airport Retail Park CV3 4RP,  Date of Contravention: XX/XX/2025, Parking Charge Ref Number: xxxxxxxxx
It is our position that the Letter of Claim (“LOC”) is compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“the Protocol”). The LOC provides adequate information for you to identify the debt that our Client is seeking to recover. We would 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.

For the avoidance of doubt, please note that the timeframe in which to appeal the Parking Charge has expired. You were given the opportunity to lodge an appeal when the initial Notice was issued to you. Given that the case has been escalated to this firm for recovery action, the time to appeal has now elapsed and payment of the Parking Charge(s) is now required.

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. Further, in accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA)/International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice, where the Parking Charge becomes overdue and before Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be added for the debt recovery fees. The correct recovery fees have been added and will not be removed, for completeness we would advise that the fee is not inclusive of any VAT, as it does not pertain to a supply of goods/services between you and our Client.

To clarify, when parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are thus entering into a contract (by way of conduct) 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.

Attached are copies of evidence pertaining to the matter, however, if there are any documents that you have requested, but that are not attached, 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 to make payment of the amount as per our Letter of Claim. 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 (XXXXXXXXHVP) 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/.

Please note that in the absence of payment in the next 30 days, our position remains as previously advised. As such, should our client instruct us to proceed with further legal action, we reserve the right to do so without any further reference to you.

If you are at all unsure of your legal position, we recommend that you seek your own independent legal advice

Sofia Marth
Administration Associate
DCB Legal Ltd

Re: Parking Charge from DCBL 12 min Over Stay
« Reply #10 on: »
Reply as follows:

Quote
Subject: Your Response to Letter of Claim — Request for Details of Authorised Litigator

Ref: [insert their case ref and PCN ref]

Dear Ms Marth,

Thank you for your reply.

It is apparent from the content and tone of your response that you are relying on a standardised template and have not properly engaged with the specific legal issues raised. The reply does not demonstrate any meaningful understanding of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims or of your client’s disclosure obligations under paragraphs 6(a)–(c) of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols.

Given that your correspondence falls significantly below the standard expected of a solicitor’s firm purporting to conduct litigation, I now require confirmation of the name and SRA authorisation number of the individual who is personally responsible for the conduct of this matter and who is authorised to carry out reserved legal activities on behalf of DCB Legal Ltd.

Please note that under the Legal Services Act 2007, the conduct of litigation may only be undertaken by an authorised or exempt person. I therefore require you to identify the authorised person supervising or signing off this file.

Until this is clarified and a Protocol-compliant response is provided (enclosing the documents previously requested), I am unable to engage substantively or to consider my position further. Should proceedings be issued without compliance, I will raise these points with the court in relation to conduct and costs.

Yours faithfully,

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

Re: Parking Charge from DCBL 12 min Over Stay
« Reply #11 on: »
Thank you so much. 

Re: Parking Charge from DCBL 12 min Over Stay
« Reply #12 on: »
We have had another email after sending the one above which was edited with the Information needed.

Here is the emael response from them:

We write in response to your recent correspondence in response to our Letter of Claim (LOC) and will now respond as follows.
It is our position that the Letter of Claim (“LOC”) is compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“the Protocol”). The LOC provides adequate information for you to identify the debt that our Client is seeking to recover. We would 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.
For the avoidance of doubt, please note that the timeframe in which to appeal the Parking Charge has expired. You were given the opportunity to lodge an appeal when the initial Notice was issued to you. Given that the case has been escalated to this firm for recovery action, the time to appeal has now elapsed and payment of the Parking Charge(s) is now required.
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. Further, in accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA)/International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice, where the Parking Charge becomes overdue and before Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be added for the debt recovery fees. The correct recovery fees have been added and will not be removed, for completeness we would advise that the fee is not inclusive of any VAT, as it does not pertain to a supply of goods/services between you and our Client.
To clarify, when parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are thus entering into a contract (by way of conduct) 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.
Attached are copies of evidence pertaining to the matter, however, if there are any documents that you have requested, but that are not attached, 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 the amount as per our Letter of Claim. 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 (XXXXXXXXXHVP) 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.
We would ask that you kindly furnish us with your most up to date telephone number and email address, this can be emailed to us at info@dcblegal.co.uk.
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/.
Please note that in the absence of payment in the next 30 days, our position remains as previously advised. As such, should our client instruct us to proceed with further legal action, we reserve the right to do so without any further reference to you.
If you are at all unsure of your legal position, we recommend that you seek your own independent legal advice

Re: Parking Charge from DCBL 12 min Over Stay
« Reply #13 on: »
You can respond to that with the following:

Quote
Subject: Non-compliant Letter of Claim, Templated Responses, and Request for Authorised Litigator Details

Ref: [insert their case ref and PCN ref]

Dear Ms Marth,

Your latest reply does not engage with the specific issues raised and again relies on a generic template. It is legally embarrassing that, when put to strict proof and directed to the relevant Protocol provisions, you have chosen formulaic assertions over substance.

The Letter of Claim remains non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols. You have still failed to provide the key documents required for meaningful pre-action engagement, namely:
1. The original Notice to Keeper relied upon (to establish any PoFA 2012 keeper liability).
2. Contemporaneous photographs of the actual signage in situ on the material date and the exact contractual wording allegedly breached (not library images).
3. The written landowner authority conferring standing to issue charges and litigate.
4. A clear breakdown of the sum claimed, identifying the legal basis of each element (consideration or damages) and the provenance of the £70 add-on.

Your repeated reliance on Protocol para 2.1(c) (proportionality) does not displace your obligation to provide “key documents relevant to the issues in dispute” under PD-PACP 6(a)–(c) and the information required by Protocol paras 3.1, 5.1 and 5.2. The “appeal window” point is irrelevant at this stage.

You also continue to characterise the parking charge as a “genuine pre-estimate of loss”. That is wrong in law. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 confirmed that such charges are not assessed by the GPEOL test. Please correct your position.

As for the £70 “debt recovery” add-on, it is denied. It is a duplicated cost of business, irrecoverable on the small-claims track and inconsistent with the Government’s Private Parking Single Code of Practice (17 February 2025). Your own admission that no VAT is chargeable underscores that no taxable supply is made to the motorist.

Given the above, please now:
A) Identify the authorised person responsible for the conduct of this matter (full name and SRA number). The conduct of litigation is a reserved activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 and must be carried out by an authorised or exempt person.
B) Serve a Protocol-compliant response enclosing the documents at 1)–4), or provide a short refusal schedule for each item with reasons.

Further obfuscation or persistence with templated, non-responsive correspondence will leave me with no option but to lodge a formal complaint with the SRA, addressing compliance with the SRA Principles and Code of Conduct (including supervision and the provision of a competent standard of service).

I will correspond in writing only. Do not telephone me. Upon receipt of a Protocol-compliant response, I will take advice and provide a substantive reply within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. If you issue proceedings without first complying, I will apply for a stay and seek appropriate sanctions and costs under PD-PACP 13–16.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
[Postal address]
[Email]
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Love Love x 1 View List

Re: Parking Charge from DCBL 12 min Over Stay
« Reply #14 on: »
Thank you agaim so much, we will send this tomorrow 😊