DCBLegal letter of claim

Stanbutler

Coupon-mad said:

 When the PCN is passed to DCB Legal a further £70 is added to the £100 charge, which is the recovery charge permitted by the British Parking Association.

Mr ****** claims not to be the driver, however, he has not provided a driver nomination, as such he is being pursued on the balance of probabilities that he was the Driver as he is the Registered Keeper.

You MP needs to reply pointing out that both of the above are banned by the DLUHC's new code, and neither were ever allowable in law (CRA 2015 and POFA 2012).

Thank you, what is DLUHC please ?
My MP has been brilliant so will ask him to get back to them and point tbat out.

KeithP

Stanbutler said:

Coupon-mad said:

 When the PCN is passed to DCB Legal a further £70 is added to the £100 charge, which is the recovery charge permitted by the British Parking Association.

Mr ****** claims not to be the driver, however, he has not provided a driver nomination, as such he is being pursued on the balance of probabilities that he was the Driver as he is the Registered Keeper.

You MP needs to reply pointing out that both of the above are banned by the DLUHC's new code, and neither were ever allowable in law (CRA 2015 and POFA 2012).

Thank you, what is DLUHC please ?

Google will tell you, and your MP will already know, that it is the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333036/breaking-news-government-has-announced-the-statutory-code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1

You will have to read the new statutory Code to know what I am talking about re those two points. 

Both banned by Government now.

Whilst the Code is not retrospective, things that the DLUHC has declared as banned are IMHO, because they were always disallowed under the laws that relate to the issues (in this case, CRA 2015 and POFA 2012). 

The Govt has merely confirmed the legal position.  DCBLegal has not.

Stanbutler

I will ask my MP to point this out to them and see what happens. Thanks for your help.

Coupon-mad

Did you read the Code already and found the paragraphs in question, and know what to say to your MP?

Stanbutler

Coupon-mad said:

Did you read the Code already and found the paragraphs in question, and know what to say to your MP?

This is what I have sent to my MP

I have managed to get some advice on the matter and would be grateful if you could reply to DCB Legal and point out the following issues,

The added £70.00 charge and pursuing of the registered keeper, both of these are banned by the DLUHC's new code and neither were ever allowable in law (CRA 2015 and POFA 2012)

Coupon-mad

Pursuing the keeper is allowed under the POFA.  That hasn't changed.

The Code doesn't ban it.  The code bans assuming that a keeper was the driver.

The difficulty is your MP won't know what you mean and the advice was to quote the new code, not least so that you also have read it and can use it knowledgeably later on, in your defence.

Stanbutler

Coupon-mad said:

Pursuing the keeper is allowed under the POFA.  That hasn't changed.

The Code doesn't ban it.  The code bans assuming that a keeper was the driver.

The difficulty is your MP won't know what you mean and the advice was to quote the new code, not least so that you also have read it and can use it knowledgeably later on, in your defence.

I see, the problem is I am dyslexic and find it hard to read and process large amounts of information and then put into words what I want to get accross hence why I try and keep things short and simple.

95Rollers

Stanbutler said:

Dear Mr Anderson,

I hope this email finds you well.

Thank you for your emails the contents of which have been noted. I have been passed the above-mentioned matter following your correspondence.

Please be advised that I am instructed by Highview Parking Limited to recover an unpaid Parking Charge (PCN) from Mr ******.

My client has been pursuing Mr ****** since the PCN was issued in July 2016, as I am sure you are aware there is a 6 year limitation period in which to pursue the debt. Mr ****** has received numerous correspondence from my client, from our sister company DCBL and now from DCB Legal in relation to the unpaid PCN.

Accordingly, my client is instructed by the Landowner to manage the Land at Broad Centre Retail Park, this includes the enforcement of PCNs when the terms of parking are not complied with. If Mr ****** was unsure about the terms of parking on the Land, he should have sought alternative parking.

When Mr ****** chose to not pay for parking on the land, he

. When the PCN is passed to DCB Legal a further £70 is added to the £100 charge, which is the recovery charge permitted by the British Parking Association.

Mr ****** claims not to be the driver, however, he has not provided a driver nomination, as such he is being pursued on the balance of probabilities that he was the Driver as he is the Registered Keeper. 

Plenty of things wrong there. 

How does she know you were the driver?  Like she said it's an "assumption" that the RK was driver!

How does she make the conclusion you "chose" not to pay?  

How can she assume signs were seen, read or understood or terms of contract were accepted? 

Do people not often have regular access to cats they are not registered to? 

Can everyone remember every single little car trip or carpark vist they've done from years gone by?

The BPA "let's them add on £70".  The BPA aren't an official body nor is this in statute law!  Never has been and gets repeatedly denied by judges and goes against normal debt principles if it is actually a "debt" as they dress it up as!  

They bang on about PoFA - BUT the £70 add on is not recoverable in the name of PoFA so what gives the BPA, DCBL and PPCs the authority to abuse their power and tax you this extra amount which has been recently been banned!?

Put thst to Ellen and your MP!

Stanbutler

95Rollers said:

Stanbutler said:

Dear Mr Anderson,

I hope this email finds you well.

Thank you for your emails the contents of which have been noted. I have been passed the above-mentioned matter following your correspondence.

Please be advised that I am instructed by Highview Parking Limited to recover an unpaid Parking Charge (PCN) from Mr ******.

My client has been pursuing Mr ****** since the PCN was issued in July 2016, as I am sure you are aware there is a 6 year limitation period in which to pursue the debt. Mr ****** has received numerous correspondence from my client, from our sister company DCBL and now from DCB Legal in relation to the unpaid PCN.

Accordingly, my client is instructed by the Landowner to manage the Land at Broad Centre Retail Park, this includes the enforcement of PCNs when the terms of parking are not complied with. If Mr ****** was unsure about the terms of parking on the Land, he should have sought alternative parking.

When Mr ****** chose to not pay for parking on the land, he

. When the PCN is passed to DCB Legal a further £70 is added to the £100 charge, which is the recovery charge permitted by the British Parking Association.

Mr ****** claims not to be the driver, however, he has not provided a driver nomination, as such he is being pursued on the balance of probabilities that he was the Driver as he is the Registered Keeper. 

Plenty of things wrong there. 

How does she know you were the driver?  Like she said it's an "assumption" that the RK was driver!

How does she make the conclusion you "chose" not to pay?  

How can she assume signs were seen, read or understood or terms of contract were accepted? 

Do people not often have regular access to cats they are not registered to? 

Can everyone remember every single little car trip or carpark vist they've done from years gone by?

The BPA "let's them add on £70".  The BPA aren't an official body nor is this in statute law!  Never has been and gets repeatedly denied by judges and goes against normal debt principles if it is actually a "debt" as they dress it up as!  

They bang on about PoFA - BUT the £70 add on is not recoverable in the name of PoFA so what gives the BPA, DCBL and PPCs the authority to abuse their power and tax you this extra amount which has been recently been banned!?

Put thst to Ellen and your MP!

Do I really need to do anything sounds like they dont have a case for court if they say this in court will the judge even take it seriously ?