DCB Legal 'Letter Of Claim'

Le_Kirk

Perhaps "take no action" is a better phrase than ignore debt collector letters, although neither imply throwing away information, as you can now understand, it can leave you in a pickle.  You are correct in that you submit a SAR to the Private Parking Company (PPC) to get hold of the original PCN.  You can send an e-mail to DCB Legal explaining that, whilst you deny any debt, you are seeking debt advice and you require them to place the issue on hold for 30 days in line with the pre-action protocol for debt claims 4.2

4.2 If the debtor indicates that they are seeking debt advice, the creditor must allow the debtor a reasonable period for the advice to be obtained. In any event, the creditor should not start court proceedings less than 30 days from receipt of the completed Reply Form or 30 days from the creditor providing any documents requested by the debtor, whichever is the later.

 Be aware this only works before action, that is, after a letter before/of claim but BEFORE an actual N1 claim form from NORTHAMPTON CCBC.
Luke Gross has cancelled PCNs for (some) other posters - you COMPLAIN to him that Road Chef are trying to force drivers to go back out onto the motorway before they are sufficiently rested.

Coupon-mad

Why not just read other CP Plus Roadchef threads and copy what everyone else has done.

Really simple stuff.  Easy to defend in court and maybe Tracey might accept your complaint if there is a Z in the month!

M1ghtyb00sh

I looked at previous posts and sent an email to all the senior Roadchef people on all the threads I read.  Had the below back within hours...

Dear Mr XXXXXX

 

As the Director of Commercial Income, I have been asked to look at your case by our CEO, Mark Fox and Simon Turl, our Chairman, in relation to a PCN that you received, following a visit at our Pont Motorway Service Area in 2017.

 

First and foremost, I hope you are feeling better now. I was pleased to read that as you were very tired, that you were then able to get a safe rest and sleep break, which is of course our primary function and the main reason we operate the car parking system in the way that we do as I will go on to explain below.

 

As you may be aware there are not many places to park in the country where charges are not applicable, from town centres and shopping malls to even hospitals now. In the case of Motorway Services, parking charges have been in place for nearly 25 years because it is essential that we are not used as a park and ride. Our primary function is for driver safety and therefore we need to ensure that there are spaces available for the next driver, who also may require a rest break. 2 hrs is deemed by all, including our government, to be a safe and reasonable break period, which is why there is no charge at all for this period. Pont Motorway Services has 35 parking signs on it, of which 16 are relating to payment as it is vital that all of our customers are aware of how our charging structure operates.

 

The PCN system is simply a deterrent and in the interests of fairness to all of our customers who do pay for parking (if over 2 hrs) it is then unfair to allow others not to pay at all, unless they have extenuating circumstances. 

 

GroupNexus (or CP Plus) manages the parking on all of our Motorway Service Areas and helps us to ensure that there is always sufficient parking provision as previously stated.

If GroupNexus does not receive a response to any of the three PCN letters initially issued to the registered keeper, the case is then passed on to a debt recovery company, further letters are then issued and again if no response, it is referred to the DCBL, which is what appears to have happened in your case.

The reason that the above is relevant, is to explain that because we employ GroupNexus to manage our parking, under General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) we do not hold any of the information on the vehicles, visits or driver information for any of our Services, therefore we are not involved in the appeals process. Even if we ask for it, they could only supply very limited information, again due to GDPR.

 

For this reason, the process at this stage is to write to the debt recovery company, with the information and evidence regarding your appeal and they will liaise with GroupNexus on your behalf. GroupNexus is a member of the British Parking Association and must therefore abide by their Code of Practice and respond to appeals as set out in the code.

 

I hope that this helps to point you in the right direction to obtaining a speedy solution.

Yours sincerely

Tracy Baitup

Director of Commercial Income

tracy.baitup@roadchef.com
07710 593053

Roadchef House
Norton Canes MSA
Betty's Lane
Norton Canes
Cannock
Staffordshire
WS11 9UX

M1ghtyb00sh

Once I do the SAR to CP Plus and also email DCB Legal to let them know I've requested the info... whats typically happens next... I'm concerned the time its taking and the distraction is worth more than the £170.  Clearly I don't want to pay that rapacious amount of money and I buy into all your comments and posts on here about fuelling the greed and pugnacious attitude of these private parking firms but I'm half tempted to call the number on the DCB Legal letter and see if I can possibly agree a lesser fee.  Silly move perhaps??? 

Coupon-mad

STUPID move (you did ask!) and you would be funding the whole scam against less informed victims, all for an easy life.  Not an option for anyone on this forum, morally or financially.

When you send CP PLUS/ Group Nexus SAR they will try to make you fill in their sneaky ‘SAR FORM’ which asks if you were driving (wrong on so many levels).  This is discussed on any other Roadchef thread which would only take you an hour or so to read half a dozen to get up to speed. It’s just copying what others have already done.  Nothing new or time consuming and well worth it.

Just as important- Have you done the Government Consultation yet and emailed your MP?

Please comment on the government consultation concerning parking charges and complain to your MP about the proposal to allow fake add on debt recovery costs.

Government Consultation re private parking charge levels, August 2021: PLEASE BOOKMARK THIS THREAD — MoneySavingExpert Forum

We are calling for everyone to do a full and robust response by email to the MHCLG, attaching evidence of what happened to you and what you think is wrong about £100 charges and fake debt recovery ‘fees’ that no PPC actually incurs or pays. 

We also need people to contact their MP to ask questions about why the MHCLG appear to have performed a U-turn on their March promise to cap parking charges, and why instead they propose to fund the race to court at £70 a time from victims

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78517562/#Comment_78517562

To anyone reading this: PLEASE DO THIS IF YOU WANT CONSUMER VOICES TO OUTWEIGH THE PARKING INDUSTRY’S GREED. WHICH SEES THEM TRY TO CLAIM MORE THAN THE LAW ALLOWS, FROM A REGISTERED KEEPER,

I just looked at the POFA Explanatory Notes (part of the legislation):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/notes/division/5/1/3/3

221.Paragraph 4 provides that the creditor has a right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the relevant vehicle if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are satisfied. The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity. The right to reclaim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper does not apply in cases where the vehicle has been stolen before it was parked, (paragraphs 4(2) to (3)), or in certain circumstances where the vehicle in question was a hire vehicle (paragraph 4(7)). The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5)).

Just 3 weeks left to change things.

M1ghtyb00sh

Had call with MP's staff and had letter from them today...

M1ghtyb00sh

Doing the consultation now...

M1ghtyb00sh

I’ve completed that survey. Haven’t emailed the MHCLG yet. Can’t see I’ll get any further joy from my MP. But I’ll email them too as you mentioned. 

Shall I leave the SAR but till next week or week after or do it now. That just buys time yeah? What happens after that? I will read the forums but just tell me in a nutshell what’ll happen next? 

Le_Kirk

You need to submit a SAR so that you receive the data it holds about you in time to include it in your witness statement, so straight away as the PPC has 30 days to reply.

Coupon-mad

That MP is clueless and that is a terrible MSE link.  

You should reply and they’ll them that advice is wrong and the useful MSE Forum that knows what they are talking about is here!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/categories/parking-tickets-fines-parking

And say that you are hugely concerned about failings in the new MHCLG Consultation about debt recovery added false costs of £70 which would be legalised extortion and you would like your MP to ask questions about why the MHCLG appear to have performed a U-turn on their March promise to cap parking charges, and why instead they propose to fund the race to court at £70 a time from victims.

It also breaks existing law. I just looked at the POFA Explanatory Notes (part of the legislation):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/notes/division/5/1/3/3

221.Paragraph 4 provides that the creditor has a right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the relevant vehicle if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are satisfied. The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity. The right to reclaim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper does not apply in cases where the vehicle has been stolen before it was parked, (paragraphs 4(2) to (3)), or in certain circumstances where the vehicle in question was a hire vehicle (paragraph 4(7)). The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5)).