DCBL Notice Of Debt Recovery

beamerguy

ward840 said:

I've gon a little bit further.  Parking Eye got my personal data from the DVLA to be able to send me their letters.  I have reported them to the ICO for a breach of GDPR.   The ICO have emailed me to confirm they have started an investigation.


The DCBL letter was actually comical.  

Why would the ICO investigate just because PE obtained your address .... they are entitled to ?

We all KNOW about DCBL, and their nonsense but, why did you waste your time, drain your battery to speak to a known scammer ???

Redx

Parking companies do not have to hire a solicitor at all

Several do it themselves by issuing their own claims via MCOL , using the CCBC in Northampton , Parking Eye , Excel and many others do it in house

They can add up to £100 in court fees and legal expenses to their £100 PCN charge , for a court case

Parking Eye typically claim £175 where the £75 is court and legal fees

Coupon-mad

No-one should ignore.  P/Eye sue in most cases, I would say (except certain landowners don't let them).

LJB179

So, just to clarify, ignore the initial letters received from DCBL but then when referred back to the original company (Capital Parking, in my case), you would discuss it? I have read the newbies thread but got slightly lost. Same issue as the original poster.

Coupon-mad

This is not the same if it's not ParkingEye.  However, there is a difference too, between letters from DCBL Recovery and DCBLegal (the latter signalling a claim).  Please don't go away and sit on your hands about this (if you are at 'ignore the debt letters' stage) without doing this, though!

Please now make a real difference because not enough people have yet, and time is running out.

A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER - NB: this will take an hour or more to go through each section, and to do BOTH consultations:

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

Please complete comment on all sections if you have a view, remembering the vision of the Knight Act is to end extortionate parking charges.  If you agree with us, the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters and MUST GO, along with the robo-claim legal firms. 

A Speeding fine is £100.  A Local Authority lower rate parking penalty is £50.  Which do you think a private PCN should be like?

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

Responses into the PAS 232 and MHCLG framework documents are not completely straightforward:

On the MHCLG response, you have to answer the questions on a 1-5 scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and then put some commentary. No way to upload documents or alternatives.

 On the PAS 232, you have to click on each clause and sub-clause to put your comments, and a suggested rewording of their draft.  You can see comments which other people have written! 

 But, when you click ‘submit’, a message pops up to say your comments have been received, but that only applies to the particular clause you have just addressed.

You have to click ‘submit’ separately for each individual clause response.

Some people will be caught out by this but can revisit it and add further responses up to 12 October.