DCBL/UKPC no permit PCN

MisterBlobby

Hi all, I'm just seeking advice about some particulars in my case.

I recently received two DCB Limited letters on behalf of UKPC stating I have 14 days before they'll recommend court, etc etc. The 'offences' date back to August 2016 for not displaying a permit in a permit only residential car park. In total, they claim I owe £320--£160 for each.

I've read the NEWBIES post, so I've not contacted them and have sent UKPC a SAR. I'm also attempting to contact the landowner to cancel the ticket. But let's assume this goes to court...

I've already found the pictures they will use against me on the UKPC website. Please see below. There's also ones of my car without the permit that I haven't posted.

I think these signs are not clear. The only obvious bit is 'NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING'.

I'm thinking my defence is that I had no reason to think this sign applied to me because the rest of the text isn't clear, and the part that is... well, I had every reason to believe that I was parked in an authorised location... both times, I parked in the allocated space for the particular address I went to. If I had no reason to think I was contravening the sign, why would I read the small print, which probably does mention the permit bit?

Tricky thing is, I'm not sure if their tenancy agreement helps. This is what it says:

7. Car Park 

7.1 

To park private vehicle(s) only at the property. If the Tenant is allocated a car parking space, the Tenant will 

only park in the space allocated to the Property. 

7.2 

It is the Tenant's responsibility to verify whether they are eligible for any Residents' Parking Scheme operated by the relevant local authority. The granting of this Tenancy does not imply a right to obtain a Resident's Permit.

I worry that this alone isn't clear enough to say what their allocated space was. However, they do have a separate email from the management company clearly saying that this was their spot. Is that enough?

Also, not sure if the bit about the permit will come back to bite me. However, it doesn't clearly say a permit needs to be shown, and the management company never told the tenants about this requirement.

So importantly for me, how was I supposed to know? I trusted the tenants I was visiting, and they were misinformed. They had no reason to read the sign closely themselves because they didn't own a car. I had no reason to read it because I had no reason to think I was contravening it.

Does this have any legs?

I'm tempted to just give up for peace of mind even though I think it's ridiculous.

Thank you!

Umkomaas

Out and out debt collector letter. Ignore, as per the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, fourth post. You've sent a SAR, that's good, you're trying to contact the landowner, that's good too. 

There's not much else to do now until UKPC reveal their hand in terms of deciding whether to progress to court for a single ticket. No guarantee, but my hunch is that they won't. Even if they do, very defendable, especially if they're relying on those crap photos of signage. Should it get to a hearing you could ask the Judge if the legal advocate representing UKPC could please read what it says on the signs! 

beamerguy

More rubbish from DCBL ....... and UKPC.

You don't owe £160 a ticket .... DCBL ARE FAKING IT ...... Anyway, going back to 2016, they are mug hunting and that is a typical junk chase up letter

Just ignore it. If you get a letter before claim giving 30 days, come back here.
UKPC signs are terrible but ...... are those the actual signs back in 2016 .... doubtful ??


The problem is that UKPC are desperate for money due to covid.  The other problem is for DCBL by adding a fake amount of £60 per ticket. That makes their claim unreliable and a request to a court to strike it out will be in order

We have seen loads of the junk letters from DCBL and so far little or nothing happens. Probably because DCBL know they will lose

Join in the fun about DCBL / UKPC

DCBL letters ... forum group thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6237177/dcbl-letters-forum-group-thread#latest

SayNoToPCN

"operated by the relevant local authority"

This is a reference to a real authority, such as a council, and if THEY operate a parking scheme with permits you dont get one jsut because there is a space otherwise

The lease absolutely does not require the display of a permit, you had a superior licence to park from the landHOLDER - the tenant - and proof that was the allocated space

The tenant should be instructing the managing agent to cease doing anything in this space, as they are creating a private nuisance

fisherjim

Those signs look like they have been illuminated by the flash from a camera/phone are they really that well illuminated in the dark?

D_P_Dance

DCBL  are almost certainly claiming for unlawful Complain to your MP and read these,

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''.

then read these

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

beamerguy

fisherjim said:

Those signs look like they have been illuminated by the flash from a camera/phone are they really that well illuminated in the dark?

I agree, and it's a very odd time of day to take these pictures ..... 2 minutes to midnight ?
PLUS the time/date stamp looks like it was added (doctored)

DCBL are claiming the fake £60 but do those signs make mention of extra charges because back in 2016, the BPA had not mentioned their "scam to make more money" words ...... about debt collection

SayNoToPCN

nearly 1am beamer

No way that is light from anything other than a flash

beamerguy

SayNoToPCN said:

  

nearly 1am beamer

No way that is light from anything other than a flash

oh yes, must remember to change my clocks to summer time 

Fruitcake

Bog standard UKPC signs where the amount of the charge cannot be read because it is too small.

The signs are also forbidding as there is nothing offered to someone who is not authorised to park, so there can be no agreement to a contract when there is nothing offered in return.

The leaseholder has primacy of contract over anything a third party unregulated scammer has to say.