DCBL - parking charge 5 yrs old

nee_ne3

Hi All, 

I have read through previous thread on this matter but wanted to ask for my clarity.

So my elderly dad has received a notice of debt recovery letter for a parking ticket dated 25/07/16 from DCBL. They state to pay within 14 days otherwise they will start legal action.

We do recall this ticket as my sisters ex partner was the one who actually parked the car in the carpark. We actually responded back when we received the first letter and provided my sisters ex partners details to pursue for the debt. We never heard anything back so assumed it was all settled but then today my father had receievd 3 letters from DCBL stating he needs to pay within 14 days.

My father is worried now he is going to get bailiffs knocking at his door. Any advice would be great as we are not sure what to do as my sister is no longer in contact with her ex and even if she was I doubt he would accept the ticket now, and also the car in question was sold years ago.

Do we wrote back to DCBL and tell them we provided details of the driver years ago, would this be worth it as we don't have any proof now. Or do we ignore letters like previous thread suggests?

The fine is now £160

Thanks in advance 
Nee x

Coupon-mad

We do recall this ticket as my sisters ex partner was the one who actually parked the car in the carpark. We actually responded back when we received the first letter and provided my sisters ex partners details to pursue for the debt. We never heard anything back so assumed it was all settled but then today my father had receievd 3 letters from DCBL stating he needs to pay within 14 days.
My father is worried now he is going to get bailiffs knocking at his door. Any advice would be great as we are not sure what to do as my sister is no longer in contact with her ex and even if she was I doubt he would accept the ticket now, and also the car in question was sold years ago.
Do we wrote back to DCBL and tell them we provided details of the driver years ago, would this be worth it.

Yes.  Give his name and last known address again. State that the keeper already transferred liability to the driver back in (date) but this is being repeated and the keeper expects to hear no more and will sue for harassment if their client continues to bother him, given the provisions of the POFA 2012, whereby Schedule 4 protects keepers who transfer liability and parking firms can't revert to the keeper later on, for any reason whatsoever.

The letter MUST come from your Dad, not you, and keep free Post Office proof in the form of a  Certificate of Posting (NOT RECORDED DELIVERY/SIGNED FOR).

Umkomaas

Your father won't get bailiffs, tell him to forget that. I won't repeat the circumstances when bailiffs might attend (Google it!), but your father is light years away from any such nonsense. 

Which parking firm?

beamerguy

nee_ne3 said:

Hi All, 

I have read through previous thread on this matter but wanted to ask for my clarity.

So my elderly dad has received a notice of debt recovery letter for a parking ticket dated 25/07/16 from DCBL. They state to pay within 14 days otherwise they will start legal action.

We do recall this ticket as my sisters ex partner was the one who actually parked the car in the carpark. We actually responded back when we received the first letter and provided my sisters ex partners details to pursue for the debt. We never heard anything back so assumed it was all settled but then today my father had receievd 3 letters from DCBL stating he needs to pay within 14 days.

My father is worried now he is going to get bailiffs knocking at his door. Any advice would be great as we are not sure what to do as my sister is no longer in contact with her ex and even if she was I doubt he would accept the ticket now, and also the car in question was sold years ago.

Do we wrote back to DCBL and tell them we provided details of the driver years ago, would this be worth it as we don't have any proof now. Or do we ignore letters like previous thread suggests?

The fine is now £160

Thanks in advance 
Nee x

1: MOST IMPORTANT ... tell your dad NO BAILIFFS WILL CALL ....THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL ON AN UNPROVEN DEBT.   

DCBL are trying to con you in believing this could happen because of the rubbish TV programme, "can't pay we'll take it away" ...... most people have seen this total junk on TV 

You had better believe how much rubbish this is, one of their so called bailiffs was a drug dealer?

REPEAT FOR YOUR DAD ..... NO BAILIFF WILL CALL ?


You have received the standard crap letter from DCBL.   They cannot start legal action BEFORE they send you a letter called "letter before claim" which gives you 30 days to respond.

Are they acting for UKPC the well known fraudsters ?


There is a thread all about the DCBL rubbish
DCBL letters ... forum group thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6237177/dcbl-letters-forum-group-thread#latest


PS: This is not a fine, you don't owe £160 .... THIS IS A SCAM

Jenni_D

And finally - it's not a fine. Get that thought out of your (and his) mind.  Once you understand that it's merely an invoice for an alleged debt, and one for which liability has already been discharged, then it may help you to keep calm and deal with it properly.

beamerguy

Jenni_D said:

And finally - it's not a fine. Get that thought out of your (and his) mind.  Once you understand that it's merely an invoice for an alleged debt, and one for which liability has already been discharged, then it may help you to keep calm and deal with it properly.

100% .... Do you think that DCBL understand that posts on MSE are listed on Google. Forget Trustpilot, Google is far more powerful

Do you think that DCBL fully understand their support for scammers OR are they just interested in a few quid ..... end of the day only a few quid ..... or are they so desperate for a few   quid that they will put their name to shame ..... just as they are doing now

They are a copycat of BWLegagal...... never copy anything unless you know what you are doing
SAD ..... DCBL DON'T


Do these very dodgy legals have a PR dept ....100% NOT

nee_ne3

Thank you so much everyone, really appreciate your responses. I will let my father know to put his mind at rest. Its just a shame as we actually did keep a copy of the proof of postage when we sent back the form years ago but as he never heard back just assumed it was settled. I think the original firm was UKPC, never heard of DCBL till today. They sent 3 letters saying the same thing ,must be their scare tactic.
Hopefully they will give up 
Thanks again all😊 

beamerguy

nee_ne3 said:

Thank you so much everyone, really appreciate your responses. I will let my father know to put his mind at rest. Its just a shame as we actually did keep a copy of the proof of postage when we sent back the form years ago but as he never heard back just assumed it was settled. I think the original firm was UKPC, never heard of DCBL till today. They sent 3 letters saying the same thing ,must be their scare tactic.
Hopefully they will give up 
Thanks again all😊 

doubt DCBLwill give up ..... they just love wasting their time with UKPC.

DCBL ARE SCAMMING YOUR DAD ......  ..... ANY MORE of their rubbish, come back here

KeithP

@nee_ne3, don't overlook @Coupon-mad's suggestion.

Coupon-mad

Indeed, I wasn't suggesting he does nothing.

D_P_Dance

The fine is now £160

It is not a fine and thw added £60 is almost certainly unlawful, read this, read the newbies, and  complain to his MP

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.