DB Legal & Premier Parking Logistics

houndsoflove

Evening
It would appear I am one of many receiving a Letter of Claim from DB Legal.  I have read the newbies thread and sent an email SAR to Premier Parking Logistics.  I have penned an email to DB but not hit send yet.  In it I have noted the first two points about seeking debt advice and sending the SAR.  I have also included the point about Abuse of Process copying some of the content from the dedicated thread on that.  What stopped me hitting send was whether these should be treated as separate communications.

To cut a long story short the vehicle was parked on a car park that was essentially waste land (it no longer exists as housing has been built upon it).  It had been parked there previously with the required fee being paid.  However on two occasions, within two weeks of each other in 2018, the payment machine was not working.  On the first date an attempt to contact a telephone number on signage was made but it kept ringing out, on the second time a call wasn’t made due to the first experience and the fact the machine had not been fixed.  There was only one payment machine on site.   On both occasions a note was left on the vehicle explaining the machine was not working to facilitate payment. An appeal was made on the first ticket and was rejected due to being received after 21 days.  No further communication has occurred.  

Is there a case for defending and are there any precedents?

P.S. spent a while reading lots of information on here today, thanks in advance to all those giving up their time to provide guidance and support 👍🏻

Redx

yes they are 2 different emails

EMAIL 1 is to the parking company, to their DPO, attaching proof of I D such as a copy of the V5C

EMAIL 2 is the reply to DCBL with that other information you mentioned

there is always a case worth defending, not necessarily on the above story , but using no landowner authority, poor and inadequate signage , POFA , the CRA 2015 , FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT , the relevant CoP

, etc

Le_Kirk

Frustration of contract might be something you could go at; Payment machines not working.

Thread edited as thought I was on a similar thread!

nosferatu1001

Le Kirk - wrong thread? OP never says payment was made. 
Contract void due to impossibility; they require payment but no method was made available. 
Can you evidence the phone call OP? Phone log?

D_P_Dance

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

Le_Kirk

nosferatu1001 said:

Le Kirk - wrong thread? OP never says payment was made. 
Contract void due to impossibility; they require payment but no method was made available. 
Can you evidence the phone call OP? Phone log?

Yep, mixed up with a similar situation.  My post edited.

houndsoflove

nosferatu1001 said:

Le Kirk - wrong thread? OP never says payment was made. 
Contract void due to impossibility; they require payment but no method was made available. 
Can you evidence the phone call OP? Phone log?

Due to the call not connecting as it just rang out it doesn’t show on any phone bills and a screenshot of the phone log wasn’t taken. 

houndsoflove

Quick question, the SAR request info has been received where a PDT machine record was requested, although no VRN was required to be input to the machine.  No information has been sent through as it is “not applicable” however this would be useful to prove that the payment machine was not in working order.  In peoples experience is it worth asking again?

Le_Kirk

It is not "your data" so it is unlikely you will receive anything; however, if no VRM was required, what are you hoping to prove?  You can ask but not in SAR, more sensible in defence or WS for the maintenance record of the PDT on the day in question.

houndsoflove

Finally received a response from DCBL today after emailing noting that debt advice was being sought and asking the legal authority for adding an additional £60.  The response states the following:

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.

Reading the forum I understand that there are pitfalls to the position they are stating and that the case in question is contentious with regards to whether it actually approves the adding of these fake claims to the cost.  I note that the defence template has been adapted in light of this and that abuse of process is the icing on the cake.  I therefore assume that there is no point in engaging in any further correspondence with them!

Redx

Correct , no point in arguing with idiots , they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience (as Bargepole said recently)

Ps , it's double recovery , a judge will decide if it's one or the other , or both