Is what you’ve shown us, the sum total of the “contract” they have sent to you?
Regarding the “template” response to the other questions asked...
This is not our client’s usual business, and the resources could have been better spent in other areas of the business. Had you of paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so the amount due would not have increased.
Just to highlight the level of intellectual malnourishment you are dealing with here, you can tell by the highlighted bit above that you are dealing with people who apparently never finished basic English grammar in primary school.
The response to the three questions is evasive and incomplete, providing limited answers and not addressing all your concerns directly. You asked whether the £70 charge is a debt recovery fee and if it's inclusive or exclusive of VAT, specifically why you'd be covering the operator’s VAT liability.
They cite the HMRC guidance, asserting that parking charges fall outside the scope of VAT, so no VAT invoice is needed. They have not directly clarified whether the £70 includes VAT or addressed the concern about VAT liability being passed to you. They have avoided explaining the exact composition of the £70 fee in terms of VAT and have tried to justify it as a debt recovery fee based on internal costs.
The second question asked whether the principal sum was being claimed as damages or as consideration for a service. In their response, they don’t explicitly answer whether it's damages or consideration, but they imply the amount reflects what you would have (of) paid under the contract (for parking). They emphasise that the fee increased due to non-payment and recovery efforts. The nature of the principal sum remains vague as they focus on the rationale for additional fees rather than clarifying the legal basis of the charge itself (damages vs. consideration).
The third question requested evidence of a valid contract involving the landowner, OTPP, and their managing agent, Bristol Airport Ltd, granting their client the right to issue PCNs. The excuse for a contract provided, consists of only three pages (cover page, definitions/services, and a partial signature page).
Crucially, the contract appears to be between Bristol Airport Ltd and the agent, VCS, not the landowner, as specifically requested. They have provided a partial contract that does not fully meet the request, as it lacks clear evidence of direct authorisation flowing from the landowner (OTPP) through the agent to VCS. The documentation is minimal and incomplete.
Their response is evasive and focuses on justifying the charges rather than addressing the specific legal queries. The VAT issue is not fully explained, the legal nature of the principal sum is unclear and the excuse for a contract provided does not sufficiently prove the authority they claim to have from the landowner.
DCB Legal are issuing thousands of claims every week and there appears to be a significant financial incentive to obscure the VAT aspect, particularly since they’ve chosen to sidestep the clear question regarding whether the £70 fee includes VAT. By failing to clarify whether the £70 is inclusive of VAT, they have avoided having to account for VAT payments to HMRC. This allows them to pocket the full amount, effectively overcharging you.
As the fee should include VAT but they are not declaring it, this amounts to VAT fraud as they are collecting VAT from consumers without passing it on to the tax authorities. Debt recovery fees are supposed to reflect actual costs, but by inflating the figure and leaving the VAT question ambiguous, they anre unjustly enriching themselves under the guise of "cost recovery."
As we strongly suspect VAT fraud, you should report the matter to HMRC, which may investigate whether the company is correctly accounting for VAT on these additional fees. It takes a few minutes to do so online here:
https://www.gov.uk/report-tax-fraudIt’s very straightforward and once reported, you will have no further involvement. The sums involved are suspected to be in the “millions”.
