DBL Parking Fine - original fine incorrect

costaJ

Hi all, 
I have received a letter from DBL for £170 debt recovery for a parking fine at Lymm service station back in 2018. 
I couldn't possibly have stayed there for so long to have received this fine as I work around the corner and have only ever been there for a maccies drive thru morning coffee! 

Reading the DBL website, it says that even if you don't believe you should be paying the fine, it's tough and it's too late and you still owe the £170. 
Any advice on where I go from here?

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Yes, read the NEWBIES thread first.  Post #2 of it deals with LBC stage when you get a letter frim DCBLegal but it sounds like you are only getting a letter from DCBLtd (a debt crawler aggressive waste of time). 

Read the DCBL letters group thread (search for that).

However after reading both of those, I would reply to DCB Ltd and tell them this was clearly an ANPR error (two visits in 24 hours taken in error as one, as ANPR cameras do by default).  Tell them you work round the corner and are a frequent visitor for short stops and this was what is called a 'double dip' and you require them to return the file to their client as it is disputed and not recoverable 'debt' and the client (CP Plus?) must interrogate its images for the orphan image(s) they missed, that show the car leaving and then later within the two day period, returning.

costaJ

Thank you so much, this is really helpful! 
I will go over and read that thread now too

D_P_Dance

This s not a fine, please read the newbies. 

Also, they have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount of £70 for debt collection. Judges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. 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%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

If you visited this site twice, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5550336/double-dip-parking-list-of-casesr