PLEASE HELP!! Replied to Letter before claim with template and have this reply

Inyourpocko

Hi please help!!

I replied to 2 letters before claims via email, using the template on the newbies thread, as well as sending a SAR to the parking firm (First Parking). I also attached the SAR to the email I sent to the company (DCB legal).

I have received a reply but I have no idea how to answer it!!

This is the reply -

Dear Miss ****,

 

We write further to your email dated 25th September 2020.

 DCB Legal have been instructed in relation to the above cases, case reference **** relates to 2 unpaid Parking Charge Notices (PCN) totalling £260.00 and case reference **** relates to 4 unpaid PCNs totalling £550.00.

 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.

 In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, where the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) becomes overdue and before Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be added for the debt recovery fees. The correct recovery fees have been added and will not be removed. As such, the outstanding balance of £810.00 remains payable to prevent further action.

 We note you are seeking debt advice, therefore your case has been put on hold for 30 days.

 Should we not hear back from you in 30 days from the date of this email, a claim will be issued against you without further notice

Coupon-mad

There isn't a template about how to reply to an LBC in the NEWBIES thread. 
No-one replies to an LBC with an ancient template, but no harm done if you stumbled across one somehow and used it.  

DCB Legal have been instructed in relation to the above cases, case reference **** relates to 2 unpaid Parking Charge Notices (PCN) totalling £260.00 and case reference **** relates to 4 unpaid PCNs totalling £550.00.

They can't (should not) file them as separate claims.  Your reply should be a version like this one, adapted to suit:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6192476/sar-request-multiple-claim-legally-binding/p2

And add to your draft response that the Semark-Jullien case at Salisbury made no finding about the illegal costs enhancement, so they are misleading consumers by saying as much.  The Beavis case did talk about costs and the sum that could be pursued, at paras 98, 100, 193 and 198 and the only reason there was no need for the Supreme Court to look at additional fake costs was because ParkingEye had ceased to try adding them, after being found by HHJ Hegarty sitting at the High Court in ParkingEye v Somerfield (just 3 years earlier) to have committed the tort of deceit in at least one of their demand letters.  The false and unrecoverable added costs were dealt with by HHJ Hegarty at para 419 and whilst the matter was primarily a case about whether Somerfield were right to sack ParkingEye and end the contract early for aggressive pursuit of their staff and customers, the Court of Appeal agreed with the findings of the High Court.  

Inyourpocko

Thank-you!! Sorry I realise I meant I got help with the SAR from the newbies page
Thank-you very much for the link, especially as it is to DCBLegal, I will send that to them tomorrow and see what they come back with this time!!

Coupon-mad

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.

 

 

Inyourpocko

I have received a reply from DCBlegal and I’m not sure how to respond.... Could you offer any advice? This is the reply....

We write further to your correspondence received 1st October 2020. Please note this email is in relation to both cases.

Please note DCB Legal have followed the correct process in our instructions from our Client to recover the balance due and owing to our Client. There is no abuse of process, you have two separate cases comprising of different charges so no abuse of process is found. We contend that the correct process has been followed and unless you provide a substantive response to the claim itself proceedings are to be issued.

 

Please also note that due to an administrative error, the incorrect figures had been provided to you as the outstanding balance. The correct outstanding balance for both matters is £780.00. To clarify the breakdown of the balance, this is £70.00 for the Parking Charge Notice and £60.00 for the debt recovery fees. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.

 

We have outlined our position and our Client’s instructions. We have been instructed on behalf of our Client First Parking Llp to collect balances of £520.00 and £260.00 totalling to £780.00, as per the Letter of Claim. You now have 30 days from the date of this email to pay the balance in full.

 

Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account:-

 

Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account

Sort Code: ****

Account Number: ****

 

You must quote the correct case reference’s ***** and ****** when making payment.

 

Pursuing a legally owed debt is not harassment. You may wish to seek independent legal advice in this regard. Our client pursuing this matter through the Small Claims Court is the correct course of action.

 

Failure to make payment within the stipulated timeframe, may result in a claim being issued against you without further notice, as per the Letter of Claim.

 

D_P_Dance

 The correct outstanding balance for both matters is £780.00.

Only if a judge says, otherwise it is an alleged debt 

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, sometimes it can lead to cancellation.,

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers. On 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, and hopefully this will become law shortly

Redx

Personally I would not respond , if you do respond it's just to play letter or email tennis with them over the add-ons , the double recovery ( I wouldn't bother )

The true figures are the £70 per pcn times the number of PCN,s , plus maybe some interest

2 + 4 = 6 , 6 times £70 = £420

The SAR and reply to the SAR are crucial at this time , then await a court claim pack from the CCBC in Northampton

Coupon-mad

They really are useless, aren't they.