Unpaid toll charge - debt recovery

I have received an Unpaid toll notice- debt recovery from DCBL FOR THE RIXTON AND WARBURTON Bridge .  This is the first I was aware of this as this occurred on 28 march 2026. Nothing was received from EXCEL PARKING .  Two phone calls to DCBL and I informed them I had received nothing they wanted payment of 176,00told them no I did not receive the notice.  Told to put this in writing for which I did they came back and said the money is to be paid and they cannot enter into any appeal/challenge.  Called EXCEL PARKING THEY SAID THAT DCBL MUST TAKE THE INFROMATION AND PASS TO THEM AS THE CLIENT A. CAN YOU ADVISE WHAT TO DO.

Please don't post in CAPITALS, it's both hard to read and akin to shouting at us.

Also do not ever call these people, all communication should be in writing - post or email. What does your last sentence in capitals mean?

See https://www.warburtontollbridge.co.uk/app/uploads/2026/04/Rixton-and-Warburton-Bridge-Byelaws-2024.pdf

The toll bridge is covered by byelaws, meaning that non-payment of tolls is a criminal offence, pursued through the magistrates courts.

That might sound bad, but in fact because it's a "summary only" offence, any prosecution has to be initiated within six months. Further, any money levied in fines goes to the state, and the likes of Excel or whoever don't get a penny.

Please read https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/ and post what you have received.

Essentially you are now at the point where you want to spin this out until the six month period has elapsed. DCBL is powerless in this and can be ignored anyway.

This isn’t a private parking ticket so I guess it should be moved to the Speeding/criminal offences section?
Thee moderator input is that it's more appropriate here, so please ignore this question.

The toll bridge is covered by byelaws, meaning that non-payment of tolls is a criminal offence, pursued through the magistrates courts.

That might sound bad, but in fact because it's a "summary only" offence, any prosecution has to be initiated within six months. Further, any money levied in fines goes to the state, and the likes of Excel or whoever don't get a penny.

...

Essentially you are now at the point where you want to spin this out until the six month period has elapsed. DCBL is powerless in this and can be ignored anyway.

This is a common (but IMO incorrect) interpretation.

The toll bridge is covered by byelaws, that much is true.

But byelaws don't just create criminal offences.

Byelaw 24 states:

24. A liability to pay unpaid toll charges in respect of a vehicle arises where—
(a) a liability to pay a toll under byelaw 21 has been incurred in respect of that vehicle;
(b) a toll has not been paid in full by, or on behalf of, either the driver or registered keeper
of that vehicle in respect of the passage by the vehicle across the Rixton and Warburton
Bridge; and
(c) the toll remains unpaid after the relevant date.

This (in conjunction with the 2024 Order) makes the Keeper liable to pay an UTC. This byelaw does not impose an criminal liability on anyone. It operates to make the keeper liable to pay the UTC. The correct route to recover that debt is through the county court.

Separately, Byelaw 46 states:

46. Any person who contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of these byelaws is liable on
summary conviction to a fine not exceeding Level 3.

I am not certain that failing to pay is actually failing to comply with a provision of the byelaws, because byelaw 24 merely operates to make the keeper liable. You can't fail to comply or contravene it because it's not an instruction or direction. There is no "must do X" like there are in the other byelaws. It simply changes the state of affairs so that the keeper is liable to pay.

---

So, in my opinion, Byelaw 46 does not attach here. (It would be different if, for example, there was a byelaw which said "A person liable to pay an unpaid toll charge must pay any such charges...")

---

But, even if Byelaw 46 does apply, and failing to pay is a criminal offence, Byelaws 24 and 46 are concerned with two different things. The two can co-exist. In the same way that you can be prosecuted for an assault, or sued civilly for an assault. One act; two different mechanisms to deal with it.

---

So yes, any criminal prosecution would be statute-barred after 6 months from the date of the offence (whenever that is actually deemed to be - is it from the date of the first notice? The date when it increase? The second date when it increases?)

---

But the liability to pay in debt remains for the standard 6 years.

I would ignore for now and wait for a Letter Before Claim.

Ignore all begging debt letters.

There is a huge storm surrounding this toll bridge and Excel are up to their neck in it.

Like you say, I would be VERY surprised if they could take this to the County Court.

Ignore all debt letters and wait for LBC.

Agreed.
See https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6669616/warning-about-a-new-anpr-toll-on-warburton-bridge-over-manchester-ship-canal-managed-by-excel, for example.

The original poster has not been back to see any updates since the original post.

Caveat here that with this being a relatively new issue (the toll was, until relatively recently, collected directly on the bridge by a bloke with a bucket), we can't reliably predict what will happen.

I'd like to say Excel won't take it to court, but they're known to take hopeless cases to court when it comes to private parking, so never say never.

Caveat here that with this being a relatively new issue (the toll was, until relatively recently, collected directly on the bridge by a bloke with a bucket), we can't reliably predict what will happen.

I'd like to say Excel won't take it to court, but they're known to take hopeless cases to court when it comes to private parking, so never say never.

I briefly examined this situation quite some months back.

My examination of the situation raised questions in relation to how Excel could turn a byelaw breach into an apparent breach of contract.

Very similar to that series of 'Penalty Notices' that SABA started issuing at railway stations.

Excel have the same issue here.

Additionally, I understand that Excel have been told (by the local MP) to cease all toll cases until it can be established exactly what the situation is.

Excel have also issued a mass of incorrectly issued toll notices.

Quite a mess for Excel who are already under the spot light due to sharp practices such as airport no-stoppings zones.

My examination of the situation raised questions in relation to how Excel could turn a byelaw breach into an apparent breach of contract.

As I've explained above, the keeper's liability to pay stems from the byelaws, but that does not make the keeper's liability criminal, does not preclude recovery as a debt, and it is not a breach of contract either.

In the same way that other legislation imposes an obligation to pay which can be recovered as a debt in the county court, the byelaws do the same.

That there is a separate criminal liability imposed for breaches of the byelaws has no bearing on things, because at the point the keeper is liable to pay (i.e. by operation of the byelaws) the keeper has not breached the byelaws.

The only time the keeper (maybe) breaches the byelaws is if they fail to pay as required by the byelaws. But they can only fail to pay and thus be in breach because the byelaws have operated to make them liable (civilly) for the debt in the first place. And even if there is criminal liability at that point, it does not mean the original civil liability disappears.

There is a pervasive misunderstanding that byelaws = criminal, but you actually have to read them to see what they say. Not every byelaw is a byelaw which is capable of being breached and thus reflects a criminal offence. I.e:

30. If the vehicle has been sold, a person may register a new vehicle to their Account by updating
their Account.

In the same way, byelaw 24 just operates (at first instance) to make the keeper liable civilly to pay the UTC.

I take your point but one would have to ask the question, how does Excel Parking become the creditor in any action?

I take your point but one would have to ask the question, how does Excel Parking become the creditor in any action?

I would say Article 8(3) of the Order:

> MSCC may appoint any person to collect tolls or charges as its agent.


Don't get me wrong, there are a number of issues with this whole scheme*, but the keeper only being liable criminally IMO is not correct.


* E.g. Article 8(4) states:
> The person by whom tolls under this Order and penalty charges imposed in connection with this Order are payable in respect of a motor vehicle is the registered keeper.

There is a separate argument as to whether the UTCs are Penalty Charges. I think they are not.

If they are not: then the keeper on the face of it cannot be liable for them because the Order only makes the keeper liable for tolls and penalty charges.

If the are: then there is a failure to offer adjudication etc in accordance with the penalty charges legislation.

E.g. 2: The deadline on the signage does not match the byelaws.

Like you, when I read the byelaws I also found contradiction.

I got the distinct feeling that the last section of the byelaws was 'tacked on' possible by the parking company. The wording was very awkward.

Yeah, it's not been drafted very well at all.

8(4) I think is copied from the Mersey legislation, but that is a proper penalty charge scheme.

OP, I have received an Unpaid toll notice...

Which we have yet to see!

PL post this because we must see what it says. Only redact personal info.