Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,

I am reaching out regarding a recent situation that requires your assistance:

A Notice to Keeper - Final Reminder was issued on 28/05/2024 for an overstay of 21 minutes at a McDonald's car park on 11/05/2024. Subsequently, a Notice of Debt Recovery from DCBL was sent on 10/06/2024.

From the middle of May until the beginning of June, the registered keeper was abroad. Due to unforeseen circumstances, this notice was missed until now. While this is not intended as an excuse, we are seeking advice on how to proceed.

The registered keeper is uncertain about who was driving at the time of the incident.

Your guidance on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much.

Update: here is a link with images https://imgur.com/a/PHjIY3O.

Don't know where the original is, this is what it was in the post. According to what is written on the reminder, apparently they sent one out on the 14/05/2024.

Then the RK submits a SAR to the creditor parking company, that's all they can do for now. This will elicit a copy of the NTK which is the key document at present.

If it's compliant with the legislation then the keeper may be held liable irrespective of who was driving.

https://www.ukparkingcontrol.com/privacy-policy

Don't follow.

As I read it, the first letter is purely a reminder, which is permitted under the CoP.
The next letter is quick off the mark but I don't see that it's necessarily inconsistent with the CoP i.e. the creditor is now in the undefined 'debt recovery process'.

The RK does not know the date of the NTK, although the reminder states PCN issued 14 May. This is crucial because the reminder states that the RK could 'challenge' no later than 28 days from the date of the RK. This ends on 11 June and the DCBL letter is dated 10th therefore deemed served on 12th, after the end of the appeals period which we believe was stated in the RK.

IMO,a SAR is the only way, other than just asking, because there are no other options available at present other than to pay and neither the creditor nor the RK are going anywhere so time isn't really important.

OP, the other option if the RK thinks there might be a defence against the charge - but how would they know if they don't know the driver and circumstances - would be for them to put their thinking cap on, pull it over their eyes and ears and think long and hard about who was driving.

In short OP, this creditor will pursue the keeper but, experience seems to show, will discontinue before court.

But nonetheless, this is no reason IMO why you should not go through the regular steps of finding out whether a compliant NTK was issued in order to ensure you have the full suite of notices.

I would still submit a SAR.

SAR = Subject Access Request - any SAR ought to be sent by the registered keeper, as it is their data.

RK should ignore all future letters, and just wait to see if they will send a court hearing letter, correct?

Not quite, before any court action, they should send a 'Letter of Claim' or similar - come back if/when you get one of those.

I respectfully disagree with  the notion of requesting a SAR, at this stage. Additionally, there is no requirement for the OP to respond to anything, including an LoC.

I'm not saying they shouldn't but in my experience, it has never made one iota of difference to the outcome of a UKPC/DCB Legal claim as long as the claim is defended using the template defence. The very few that ever got as far as a hearing, and that was due to ****-ups made by the defendant by not following the advice properly, prior communication with UKPC did not enter into it.

The OP can send a SAR and receive all the necessary information but when the claim is served, and it will be, they cannot ague in their defence that they cannot fully understand what is happening based on the woefully inadequate PoC that DCB Legal will serve.

The current recommendation over on MSE is that a SAR should not be requested until after a claim has been served. The PoC will say that the defendant is being pursued as either the driver or the keeper.

Let them serve the claim. The PoC will be inadequate which, in itself is an abuse of process. You can guarantee that the sums claimed will be mendacious. They will claim that £70 are for "damages". They will be in breach of PoFA 4(5) by claiming for more than the amount on the original PCN. They miscalculate the interest and will not have provided any reference dates to prove their calculations. They will say that the PCN was "issued" on a date. However, the date they use is the date of the alleged contravention, not the date  the NtK was issued. We don't know the date the PCN was issued if they don't correctly state it in the PoC. Interest can only be calculated on the principal sum from the overdue date to a fixed date on or before the issue date of the claim. None of those dates are known. All breaches of due process and grounds to request that the claim be struck out.

Let the bottom-dwellers make their mendacious claim and provide added ammunition for them to realise that if they let it get in front of a judge, they are likely to get a spanking. They will discontinue before they have to pay the hearing fee.

We really don't need to see useless debt collector letters. Ignore them. They are powerless to do anything except try and scare the gullible into caving in.

You will, eventually, get a Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB Legal (not DCBL) and after that, an N1SDT claim form from the CNBC. No need to do anything until you get those.