DCB Legal LoC

34LH89

Hello

I have this morning received a formal LoC from the above for a parking fine from 2018. I do remember receiving a letter shortly after the incident, but then moved in early 2019 and sold the car in late 2019, so I have heard nothing in between.

The crux of it is the car was parked in the Urban Exchange car park in Manchester for 1h 56 minutes with a max stay of 1h 30 minutes. However, if I remember rightly me and a friend used the PureGym that day which allows car parking to be extended to up to three hours, by inputting your reg' into the system at PureGym. With it being 3 years ago I don't remember whether there was a problem with the parking machine or if I simply didn't enter my details, but either way £160 seems excessive for at the maximum a 26 minute delay on leaving.

I have read the FAQs but would really benefit from a step by step process of what to do. I could just pay it but hate the thought of someone getting one over on me, so I'm willing to try and challenge it!

Timeouts

OH DEAR,.  As it's a letter before claim it needs a reply

I see they have said the FAKE £60 is for debt collection
Did you have a prior letter from DCBL before this one ?

DCBL keep falling into the same trap ....... DEBT COLLECTION IS NOT ALLOWED 

You can check out this thread about DCBL
DCBL letters ... forum group thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6237177/dcbl-letters-forum-group-thread#latest

Then go to this thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6280159/debt-recovery-plus-and-trace-advertise-no-win-no-fee-to-parking-firms#latest

Here you will see debt collectors saying they offer a no win no fee service

Seems to me that DCBL are not aware of this so in your reply you ...
1: DENY ANY DEBT
2: ASK DCBL FOR THEIR LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ADD £60

Never seen them reply because THEY HAVE NO ANSWER

Redx

3 tasks for now

1) email a SAR to the DPO at group Nexus to obtain all your data , attaching copies of 2 recent redacted utility bills as proof of I D under the GDPR law , plus ideally adding an unredacted copy of the V5C as well , but not your driving licence or passport , no matter what they reply with

2) email dcb legal telling them to place the matter on hold for 30 days whilst you seek debt management advice

3) read a dozen recent HIGHVIEW and c p plus court case threads on here , to see what to do when the court claim pack from the CCBC in Northampton arrives

34LH89

Thanks Redx

Is the best email address the general email address for GN, or is there  specific SAR inbox? Would two bank statements work for virtually dormant accounts?

info@groupnexus.co.uk

In my email to DCB, should I also deny any debt as Timeouts has mentioned below, and am I best waiting until near the end of the current 30 day holding period, or will it be added on to my current 30 day period as standard?

Timeouts said:

I see they have said the FAKE £60 is for debt collection
Did you have a prior letter from DCBL before this one ?

Seems to me that DCBL are not aware of this so in your reply you ...
1: DENY ANY DEBT
2: ASK DCBL FOR THEIR LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ADD £60

Never seen them reply because THEY HAVE NO ANSWER

I do vaguely remember having a letter from High View but then moved house around six months later, and I can't remember having received anything else in all honesty, but perhaps did.

KeithP

There is an email address for GroupNexus's Data Protection Officer in their privacy page.

Fruitcake

If you moved home, you should instruct the DPO of the PPC to erase your old data and replace it with your current address for service.

Yes of course you should tell DCBL that although you deny the debt, you are seeking debt advice, so you require them to put the case on hold for thirty days. You can do it any time you want, but it is in addition to the 30 days you have to respond, but don't leave it until the last minute.
Two redacted bank statements will do nicely as long as they have the keeper's name and current address for service.

Redx

Check the group Nexus privacy page , all companies are required to have it need data protection , the GDPR law from a few years ago , SAR is emailed to the DPO there , although currently they obfuscate and try to make it difficult !! So persevere uong 3 forms of I D but no photographic I D !! Never give people more data than they are entitled to !!

Coupon-mad

Why not just read the shedloads of other Highview DBCLegal threads and copy how they all responded in April/May/June to the last batch of Highview LBCs and meritless claims? 

It's vital you don't blab about who might have been driving because Highview can't hold registered keepers liable, so obviously this will be defended by you as registered keeper.

Same as al the other threads the same.

The crux of it is the car was parked in the Urban Exchange car park in Manchester for 1h 56 minutes with a max stay of 1h 30 minutes. However, if I remember rightly me and a friend used the PureGym that day which allows car parking to be extended to up to three hours, by inputting your reg' into the system at PureGym. With it being 3 years ago I don't remember whether there was a problem with the parking machine 

Be careful NOT to talk about who might have parked, but in the usual reply to DCBLegal telling them you are seeking debt advice and want the stupid thing put on hold for 30 days, also state that you want evidence that their client holds as to who was driving, and why they failed to allow the 3 hours for gym users that day, because the occupants of the car would only have been there to use the gym and always input their VRM.  Ask if there was a keying error close match to the VRM or if the keypad had a fluctuating signal that day and put their client to strict proof of that, and who was driving.

Tell DCBLegal not to send you the template aggressive letter demanding to see car insurance because you will not bite that bait and have seen people laughing about that letter online, and discussing the aggression of DCBLegal who do themselves about as much favours as Gladstones, and surely must be due a report to the SRA for using misleading (bailiff arm) 'Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away!' logo letters in pre-action conduct.

D_P_Dance

They appear to have added an unlawful £65, read this and complain to your 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''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

t

34LH89

Thanks guys/girls - will do and report back.

34LH89

All done:

DPO emailed - holding email received
DCB - holding email (10 working day for a reply... brilliant)
MP emailed - perhaps a bit trivial but will keep you posted.

Thanks again.