DCB Legal Letter of Claim - What Can I Expect Next?

Le_Kirk

PTRed said:

I've not heard back from the solicitors yet regarding the breakdown of the costs - although they did say "case put on hold". Should I chase this at any point?
Is it worth asking the PPC about the extra charges?

Who added the extra costs?

PTRed

Le_Kirk said:

PTRed said:

I've not heard back from the solicitors yet regarding the breakdown of the costs - although they did say "case put on hold". Should I chase this at any point?
Is it worth asking the PPC about the extra charges?

Who added the extra costs?

I don't know - the first communication about this was the Letter of Claim I received was from DCB Legal - I've not actually received anything from First Parking. There are four PTNs, each which are £75 according to the car park and the information I got from the SAR. The total claim is £615 - they haven't broken this down per PTN in the letter, just stated four PCNs. 

It's possible First Parking added the extra costs and sent this onto DCB Legal - but the SAR request from First Parking showed the £75 cost, but didn't mention anything about additional costs.

Le_Kirk

If the four PCNs are £75 each, then it is likely (almost certain) that DCB Legal added the spurious false additional amounts.

D_P_Dance

Yes to both.

PTRed

Thanks! They just referred me back to solicitors (fastest reply I've had yet!). I have chased this and am also going to contact the University (land owner) to let them know what their representatives are doing - as well as get the payment machine records.

Coupon-mad

Good.

And I am glad you signed up to do the consultations; if you or other newbies reading this, need any pointers about adding more and making sure you commented on the ANNEXES and the questions in the COVER LETTER, then please read below:

AND - CALLING ALL NEWBIES!

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

An urgent task – deadline approaching in about ten days:

The Government is consulting for just a few more days, 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 then log in, to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker.  Submit comments as soon as 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

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

1. Read the cover letter

2. Read the cover letter again and note the suggested extra questions...and if you agree that, say, the 'loading/unloading and dropping off, asking for directions, and disabled people parking on double yellows as they can on street' activities listed should be exempt (not parking events, what do you think?) then please go to the Annexes at the end of the PAS Code and find the one about Exempt Vehicles and state what other activity you think should be added to the exempt list.  

 

If you do nothing else, please comment on:

- the amount of the parking charge levels

- the annexes at the end of the PAS (reading through the whole thing takes hours so if you have nothing to say about the definitions, for example, then skip to more vital points and the annex tables at the end.

- the bit about debt collectors and whether you think PPCs should be allowed to add 'costs' a second time, for the letters that are already within the rationale of the 'parking charge' sum...hmmm...

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 but this doesn't take long.

 

 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 go back up and find the next section, then the next...

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.

 

Things to think about:

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

Do you think if all payment methods are not functioning that PPC can 'fine' you?

 

Do you think the examples mentioned in the cover letter are right and need adding to the Annex?

 

etc. etc.

 

 

PTRed

I'm back!
Following back and forth with both the parking company and the solicitors they reduced the charge by £100 ("an administrative error). I have repeatedly asked for a breakdown of costs, which they have refused to provide. I have referenced the abuse of processes.

I have now received this email:

We write in response to your email dated 3rd November 2020.
 
DCB Legal Ltd can confirm that due to an administration error the balance initially provided on the letter of claim was incorrect. Therefore, we have since rectified this error and we were obligated to provide you with the now correct information.
 
We  note you have referred to the original parking charge’s not being recoverable under POFA 2012 schedule 4 and refer to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis.
 
Please note in accordance with the recent appeal decision made on 29th July 2020 in Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Julien [2020] EW Mis 12 (CC) the Judge held that the debt recovery charge does not fall foul of the decision of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67; thus, we submit that this is not an abuse of process as alleged. We suggest you seek independent legal advice if you are unable to access relevant and up to date appeal information and legislation.
 
Please also note we will not be entering into any further discussion surrounding the “break down” of costs. As we have already stated, the signs on site would have clearly stated such costs if the vehicle was in breach of the terms and conditions.
 
As also outlined in our previous email, you now have until the 26th November 2020 to pay the outstanding balance of £540.00. Failure to do so will result in a claim being issued against you without further notice. Please refer to this previous email on how to pay.

I would appreciate some guidance on how to reply. I didn't see anything about the "Semark-Julien" case on here previously (because it's so recent) so obviously wasn't prepared for that defence. I understand that the advice now is to treat the two aspects as separate i.e. the PCN charge and the abuse of processes. 

At this stage, the only 'defence' I have provided for the PCN itself was a lack of evidence of actually being issued one. Should I be going back and providing a more detailed dispute of the PCN or accepting that this will likely only be relevant once I get to court?

Is there anything more I can do at this stage to avoid the court case? 

Thanks!

PTRed

Oh! I also haven't received a second letter with the new amount, only an email. 

Le_Kirk

Just search the forum for posts by @Coupon-mad using the search term Semark-Jullien where you will find she rubbishes the piffle spouted by claimants and solicitors.  Also look in the NEWBIE sticky (so often the go-to place) for the latest witness statement example.

PTRed

Hi Le_Kirk, 
I've read through a lot of the discussions on this, just hoping to try and get a better understanding of what I should be doing following the latest email. I'm not at the Witness Statement stage yet, but if you think it would be beneficial for me to do so at this stage I can start doing this. 

Is it worth me replying further to DCB Legal at this stage?

Do I need a new physical letter for the time to restart? They've sent an email, essentially restarting the process when they removed the £100 - but no letter.

Thanks!