PE & DCBL

benny55555

I HAVE read previous posts & the newbies page but there seems to be different information for dealing with Parking Eye & the DCBL. However my letter is from DCBL on behalf of PE & this is a final reminder but doesn't have a 14 day or 30 day pay by limit. Should I still ignore & what are the likely consequences?

benny55555

Letter I received

KeithP

A debt collectors letter.

The fourth post on the NEWBIES thread describes exactly how to deal with that, but to summarise that post - ignore it.

ParkingEye tend to fight their own legal battles and the fact you have that letter from DCB Limited indicates that they may not be sure of their position.

benny55555

KeithP said:

A debt collectors letter.

The fourth post on the NEWBIES thread describes exactly how to deal with that, but to summarise that post - ignore it.

Great thank you

Coupon-mad

Ignore. 

The BPA CoP at 24.4 sets out what a Final Reminder has to say and it has to come BEFORE charge 'recovery' (i.e. £70 can't be added).  There are two letters the BPA CoP says are mandatory and this pattern is not it.

ParkingEye use DCBLtd in cases they are not going to sue over, such as Aldi, Hospitals and Scottish cases.

benny55555

Coupon-mad said:

Ignore. 

The BPA CoP at 24.4 sets out what a Final Reminder has to say and it has to come BEFORE charge 'recovery' (i.e. £70 can't be added).  There are two letters the BPA CoP says are mandatory and this pattern is not it.

ParkingEye use DCBLtd in cases they are not going to sue over, such as Aldi, Hospitals and Scottish cases.

Thanks so much, I've been ill about this!

Coupon-mad

Is it an Aldi, Hospital or Scottish case?  If so, and by PE using DCBLtd, probably nothing will happen.

If it is to go to court then PE would send a LBCCC themselves and it would be back down to £100.  

benny55555

Yes it's in Scotland

Coupon-mad

PE have never tried a Claim in Scotland and will be waiting until next year for new cases only, when the law will change for private parking companies to get 'keeper liability'. 

That might change PPCs' appetite for Scottish claims in new PCN situations, but even then, there is the fact that in Scotland, the Simple Procedure disallows Claimants from getting any costs on claims under £300.  So it still might not be attractive.

What you can take from this is:

- be more careful in private car parks from next Spring onwards, or whenever Scotland introduce that aspect (they are about to)

- avoid private car parks if you can.. We all do.  e.g. if waiting for someone or taking a phone call NEVER EVER drive into a private car park, you can park on street, even on a double yellow with zero danger of a ticket if you are in the car

- read signs carefully if having to use a private car park for a shop, gym, retail park, etc.  We do!

- this case is going NOWHERE. 

D_P_Dance

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. This amounts to double recovery and some 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

However, a VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

patient_dream

Just a debt collector letter.  

It seems the penny has not dropped with DCBL ...
PARKING EYE DO THEIR OWN LEGAL WORK WHICH INCLUDES COURT

Parking Eye cases do not add FAKE amounts as DCBL do.

It's rather stupid of Parking Eye to stoop down to this level when the ruling of the Supreme Court was very clear. The ruling did not say fakes could be added to the parking charge.

The fakery stems from the latest BPA code of practice designed to make more money and share it around.

It would be a very serious error if PE let DCBL take such a fake claim to court.

AND, PE must already know of the recent case DCBL brought on behalf of VCS.
It was a complete failure costing VCS £1000

I don't think PE would want that