DCB Legal Letter Before Claim Highview Parking

Riverwolf

Have reviewed newbies info, forum content and other forums (pepipoo fightback forum).

Looking for a confirmation of my next step – hoping this should be a trivial yes / no answer.

Basic Detail:

1. Received a LBC from DCB legal on behalf of Highview parking dated 16th Dec 2020.
2. 30 days’ notice to respond. 
3. Fine for £155 for alleged ticket issued on 31 / 01 / 2015 
4. (This was the first I had ever heard about this PCN).
5. Highview Parking has since been acquired by GroupNexus – I can’t find any contact details for Highview Parking anywhere online now.

My request for your confirmation –

-          Best route to resolution: Claims are unenforceable after 6 years

-          31/01/2015 + 6 years will be achieved with a 30 day debt advice pause request emailed before 16th Jan

Next steps (as per newbies info):

-          Email (not post) DCB legal on 14th Jan with:

(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.
(b) I have sent your client a SAR (Lacking contact detail and don’t see the need if it will timeout)?
(c) confirm my correct 'address for service' 

Thanks

Le_Kirk

What did Pepipoo tell you?  Posting on two different forums does not get twice the advice but can lead to twice the confusion.

Riverwolf

Did not post on there - just found a very similar case with DCB Legal, Highview and the same carpark. Posted on here as your forum info was better.

Redx

The Limitations Act 1980 states 6 years , so include it in your LBC reply

I would email a SAR to nexus anyway , regardless , make them do some work plus get evidence now in case they are stupid enough to try a court claim

So yes to LBC reply

Yes to a SAR
Yes confirm your present address for service

Coupon-mad

-          Best route to resolution: Claims are unenforceable after 6 years
-          31/01/2015 + 6 years will be achieved with a 30 day debt advice pause request emailed before 16th Jan

Spot on. 

And why not ask them as well, under the pre-action protocol, for loads fo stuff, e.g. the evidence their client holds because you don't know who was driving and are aware that Highview can't hold registered keepers liable.  Ask them what the allegation is and to supply pictures of the signage from 2015.  

That will keep them busy and certainly say you are ''seeking debt advice'' and that apart from supplying the above, you require the case to be put on hold for 30 days.  Don't remind them this will get past the six years...let them realise in February!

nosferatu1001

Redx said:

The Limitations Act 1980 states 6 years , so include it in your LBC reply

I would email a SAR to nexus anyway , regardless , make them do some work plus get evidence now in case they are stupid enough to try a court claim

So yes to LBC reply

Yes to a SAR
Yes confirm your present address for service

NO! DONT include it in the LBC reply! It might spur them into action!

Riverwolf

Thanks folks will enact the above in the next couple of days! 
You have convinced me to hassle Nexus as well  
Will err on the side of caution as suggested and NOT include reference to the 6 year timeout.

Redx

Riverwolf said:

Thanks folks will enact the above in the next couple of days! 
You have convinced me to hassle Nexus as well  
Will err on the side of caution as suggested and NOT include reference to the 6 year timeout.

Yep , save that nugget until AFTER it times out , as your whack a mole club

Riverwolf

Hi folks, the plot thickens… after a little more advice if you are willing!

Advice sought (more detail below):

-          Is the previous best approach of timing out 6 years still achievable based on below reminder notice dates? (12th March + 14 days?)

-          If so how best to aim for extending the duration?

-          E.g. They have not responded with all requested information, but have a boiler plate statement that it is disproportionate / not relevant – however the majority of the  requests were copied word for word from the Pre-action protocol Reply Form template – specifically • “A description of the nature and amount of any administrative charges included in the debt” seems very relevant and proportionate!?

- If not is it time to start planning defence?

***Detail***

Following previous sound advice I contacted DCBLegal:

“I am writing in response to your Letter of Claim dated 16th Dec 2020. I am responding within the 30 day time period in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

I attach to this email a signed copy of the Reply Form in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

I confirm my correct Address for Service is: … ,,, …

As stated in my response within the Reply Form, I can inform you that I am currently seeking debt advice but deny any debt. In accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims this case must now be put ‘on hold’ for not less than 30 days.

I have sent your Client: Highview Parking Limited, a Subject Access Request.

As stated in my response within the Reply Form in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims I request that you supply more documents and information:

1.      Written contract for the debt;

2.      Explanation of the allegation;

3.      Evidence of the allegation that will be relied upon;

4.      Photos of signage from the time of the alleged event;

5.      A full statement of account including details of all interest charges included on the outstanding balance of the debt;

6.      Explanations of calculations of all charges;

7.       A copy of notice of assignment for the debt

8.      A description of the nature and amount of any administrative charges included in the debt

In accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims Court proceedings may not be issued for at least 30 days after I have been provided with this information.

Yours sincerely,”

 

DCBLegal responded on 8th Feb:

“Dear ,,,…,,,,

We write further to our email dated 13th January 2021.

The Parking Charge was issued as your vehicle was recorded entering XXX YYY ZZZ at 14:07 and exiting at 16:44. The Terms and Conditions displayed on site state two hours free parking. We have attached images of the signs and their location.

Our Client applied to the DVLA for the details of the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle. Your name and address were provided. Our Client therefore correctly issued correspondence to you at that address.

The Charge Notice was issued to you on 6th February 2015. A copy is attached. You were afforded the opportunity to; appeal the parking charge, transfer liability to the driver (if it was not you) or make payment. Neither a successful appeal, nor an adequate nomination were received, yet payment remains outstanding.

The Reminder Notices were issued to you on 23rd February 2015 and 12th March 2015. Copies are attached. These notices reiterated that payment was outstanding and confirmed that legal action may be taken and additional costs incurred if the parking charge was not paid.

Having not received payment, address verification was carried out prior to the Letter of Claim being sent. Your new address was located and as such the Letter of Claim was issued to you at the traced address.

If there are any documents that you have requested, but that are not enclosed with this letter, it is because we have deemed the request to be disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute. We respectfully draw your attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to act reasonably and proportionately.

You have 30 days from the date of this email to pay the outstanding balance of £155.00.

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

Umkomaas

As this parking event took place on the xx/xx/2015 (you fill in the detail), this claim is now statute barred under the Limitations Act 1980, please just simply FRO. 

Or, in the alternative, issue a court claim, on receipt of which I will immediately issue a counterclaim for £900 for harassment.  Please sort out exactly what you want to do. I look forward to meeting you in my local county court. 

See if others wish to add to/offer alternative approaches. 

KeithP

As they have given you thirty days to respond, I would leave it a little later before telling them to FRO - as @Umkomaas so nicely puts it. 
I think it could be argued that the alleged debt didn't become due until 28 days after the parking event, or even 28 days after the NtK, but we don't often see this timeout issue here.

If you were feeling more cavalier, why not let them waste more money and issue a Claim before letting them know your thoughts?

As said, see what others say.