DCB Legal & Premier Parking Logistics (Hearing Day 😞)

Th1nDiesel

Following advice on another thread, I've started my own!
I have recently received a letter of claim from DCB Legal relating to an alleged debt from October 2018 that relates to a PCN issued by Premier Parking Logistics for parking without a ticket. The first I was aware of the event was upon receipt of an NTK  in December 2018, as there was no windscreen PCN when the driver returned to the vehicle. I naively ignored the NTK (and the following debt collector letters, which I know is recommended) thinking it would go away (this was before I found this site).

As per the Newbies thread, I responded to DCB Legal and put in a SAR request to PPL who have responded with seven photos of the vehicle, two incredibly close up photos of their signage, and a copy of the NTK. I had to log on to the PPL payment website in order to view the photos, but I have now also received these from DCB Legal. From the photos, I believe this a fluttering ticket case, as one of the photos shows a different parking ticket with another one (the one that was purchased on the day, though this is not obvious) underneath it and the driver is insistent that a ticket was purchased.

Anyway, I have a number of questions:

1) I paid the £3 Land Registry fee to find the landowners details and I have a name and address that I have linked to a number of small businesses in the area, but nothing that is linked to the car park (which is just a fenced off patch of land). In most cases on this site, the landowners tend to be retailers used by the defendant, but I can't threaten them with loss of business etc. so I'm not sure where to go with this. I can't find an email address for the owner, so anything I send will have to be posted to the address on the land registry. Any advice?

2) One of the photos of the vehicle shows a PCN on the windscreen, that was not there when the driver returned. The time on the photo is later than the 'Issued Time' on the NTK as are the times on all of the photos. Is this relevant and can I use it in any future defence?

3) The NTK did not contain any photographic evidence. Does this make it POFA non-compliant? Section 10 mentions evidence, but seems a bit vague. The wording on the NTK seems compliant, but I'm not versed enough to be 100% sure (yet!).

Thanks in advance for any guidance given. 

Coupon-mad

Para 10 of the POFA has never seen any statutory rules created, so para 10 of Sch4 doesn't really exist in any meaningful way.

I think do the usual reply to DCBLegal as per the NEWBIES thread to at least get 30 days delay and not see a claim filed over Xmas.

Th1nDiesel

I've already responded to DCB Legal re. the 30 days which gives me until the second week of December. I may send them a further email as per the Abuse Of Process thread, but based on responses they have sent to others in the forum I'm not sure this is worth the effort.
Based on their response, I'm pretty sure a claim will be incoming at some point, but I'd like to nip it in the bud if possible, hence my questions above.

Coupon-mad

I think sending emails about the added fake costs is pointless, as I've said on various threads.

You CANNOT nip a claim in the bud when a robo-claim solicitor has their hands on it.  This is like an out of control steamroller.

Th1nDiesel

I figured that may be the case. I also saw on another thread that DCB Legal reduced the £160 to the original £100 and I'm not sure I would want that - it makes them seem considerate (yeah, right) and may hinder my defence.

As I doubt any complaint to the land owner will get me anywhere (as I'm not a disgruntled customer, I don't really have anything to cajole them with), I may as well get started on my defence template.

In terms of that, is the time discrepancy mentioned in my original post relevent, or it is a non-starter given the small time difference? The first image was taken a minute later that the issue date on the NTK and the only image with the PCN was four minutes later.

Also, a question about PCNs - when they're issued, should the PPC keep a copy? I'd expect them to use carbon copy paper so they have a relevant paper trail. I've never seen a copy of the one supposedly issued in this instance, either on the vehicle or in the SAR response.

nosferatu1001

If they're printed on site, no
if they're sent through the post, no
they just retain the metadata 

Umkomaas

I'd expect them to use carbon copy paper so they have a relevant paper trail.

If your PCN goes as far back as the 1970s, I rather suspect it's statute barred. 😄

Th1nDiesel

Umkomaas said:

I'd expect them to use carbon copy paper so they have a relevant paper trail.

If your PCN goes as far back as the 1970s, I rather suspect it's statute barred. 😄

Haha, that's a fair point! Just assumed they'd have a copy, if it was genuinely left on the vehicle. I suspect it was placed on the vehicle then removed after the photo was taken, but obviously that's conjecture in my part.

Coupon-mad

You could have a look at the example response to DCBLegal that I wrote on the thread for @Minotaur4 (different situation with more than one claim threatened, but they don't seem to like credible threats of a counterclaim).

Th1nDiesel

Thanks C-M; I did have a read of this over the weekend, but didn't think it appropriate given the multiple claim situation and the fact that I doubt I have legitimate reason for a counter-claim, but I guess a second look won't hurt.

Back to POFA for a sec though: I've had a reread of the NTK and Sch. 4 of POFA, and the NTK quotes Paragraph 9(2)(f) which relates to an NTK which was sent without an NTD, but the NTK states that a PCN was issued, so they should be working to Paragraph 8(2)(f). Does this render the whole thing non-POFA compliant?

Coupon-mad

Arguably it's not compliant.