-
I don't think it really matters. The evidence provided does not show a "period of parking". The vehicle could have stopped and the driver was considering the terms before deciding whether to park or not. If the driver decided not to park there and then driven off, there was no "period of parking".
If the driver had simply stopped there to load or unload a passenger, there is no evidence of a "period of parking". A singular date and time is not a "period of parking". There has to be a start and end time for there to have been a "period".
The NtK has to show a "period of parking" for there to have been a breach of the terms, whether it was not purchasing a permit or not parking in a bay or whatever. It does not. It only mentions a "period of parking" without proper reference to an actual "period".
As I Park Services are IPC members, it will matter not and only a judge would be able to arbiter on that point. The NtK is not PoFA compliant for failing to specify the "period of parking". -
-
I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just thinking of arguments one would need to make. If you get a less amenable judge, it's somewhat easier to make the period of parking argument where an overstay is alleged.
-
-
I understand your point. Again, this is all academic at this stage.
As I Park Services farm their litigation out to DCB Legal, it would never reach the hearing stage if the OP follows the advice and defends any claim using the robust defence template. A DCB Legal Notice of Discontinuation is the most likely outcome of this. -
-
Update with the first reminder letter.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
You’re just going to have to weather this and the upcoming debt collector letters from DCBLtd. If/when you receive a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal, come back for your next step.
You can safely ignore all final reminders and debt collection letters. Just file them away. -
-
Things have moved from I Park to DBCL. This one still doesn't look like a "Letter of Claim", though (it calls itself a Notice of Debt Recovery), so I shall continue to wait for that.
-
-
DCBL are just useless debt collectors and you must ignore them.
A real LoC will come from a solicitor, DCB Legsl in this case, and will give you 30 days to pay, it the 14 that debt collectors try on. -
-
Exactly as you said it would. [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
Reply with the following:Quote
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 6th December 2024
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.
Finally, I would draw your attention to the response in Arkell v Pressdram, which remains pertinent to this matter.
Yours faithfully,
[YOUR NAME] -
-
Reply with the following:
Dear Sir/Madam,QuoteDear Sirs,
....
I acknowledge receipt of your template response which you advise that I send to DCB Legal. However, prior to printing and posting it, I did take the opportunity to read the contents most carefully. One detail did catch my eye, namely the reference to Arkell v Pressdram, with which I had hitherto been unfamiliar. On researching further, I regret to inform you that the coffee which I had been consuming at that moment was caused to become projected across the computer keyboard at which I was sitting.
Consequently, I shall be pursuing remedy for the loss, not only of the coffee but also of the keyboard, which is no longer functional, and of my dignity, as part of the coffee was ejected through my nose, in full presence of my family, who were caused temporary consternation at my outburst, fearing for my health. My health, I can assure you, remains intact, unlike the other named items.
Yours etc,
Ray, Doh (Mr)
P.S. Slightly more seriously, where did the £70 come from? The uplift appears to be from an original £100 to a figure now of £160. Indeed, the additional £60 was added between I Park's letter of 17th May and their letter of 17th June. Also, I see no reference to VAT beyond their VAT registration number at the bottom of the page, so is that definitely still going to be an effective argument? -
-
P.S. Slightly more seriously, where did the £70 come from? The uplift appears to be from an original £100 to a figure now of £160. Indeed, the additional £60 was added between I Park's letter of 17th May and their letter of 17th June. Also, I see no reference to VAT beyond their VAT registration number at the bottom of the page, so is that definitely still going to be an effective argument?
If they've added £60 rather than £70 to the £100, then amend the draft accordingly, the context is the same.
Whether or not you refer to Arkell v. Pressdram is your choice. Whilst the chances of this ever reaching a court hearing are incredibly low (based on DCB Legal's track record), I personally take the approach of asking myself if I would be happy for a judge to see anything that I write, and if it were me, I'd leave it out. I accept that's a matter of personal choice, however, b789 if you are including it in drafts you're suggesting people send, do please advise them to read any cases referenced before they send anything (although people ought to be doing that anyway). -
-
I've asked a judge what would be their reaction if a DCB Legal issued claim ever actually made it in front of them at a hearing and a copy of the response to the LoC was introduced as evidence (of what?). I will let you know their response.
As above, just change the £70 to £60. Also, it is, as @DWMB2 says, not likely ever going to get as far as a hearing. My money is on a discontinuation some time next year. -
-
I'm not overly concerned about people including it if they want to, I'm just keen that they're aware of what they are including.
-
-
Many thanks for the clarifications. I shall get the letter sent forthwith, and shall update you with any response that I receive.
-
-
Many thanks for the clarifications. I shall get the letter sent forthwith, and shall update you with any response that I receive.
Newbie here, I was searching the web and found this forum. I have the same issue you had at this same parking location. I was literally in there for less than 3 mins at night and they issue me with a parking charge. I have already appealed on their website and waiting for the standard response. The pictures seem to suggest I left the car but it was actually my wife that left the car while I remained in the driving seat with the engine on while she checked the parking fees before we decided to go elsewhere after our dinner reservation at the restaurant adjacent to it was cancelled. How can they charge one for a 2 mon period? -
Agree x 1
View List