DCB Legal for UKCP acting like jerks

MrMoonsPointofview

Hello all readers

Recently I received a Letter Before Claim from DCB Legal acting on behalf of UKPC. Per usual on an opening letter, it ticked NO single box from the Practice Direction by which I believe all parties are bound. The alleged "contravention" occurred almost three years ago. It was ANPR - and it caught my vehicle entering TWICE about three hours apart. It did not catch the original exit (rear plate view as there is singular camera, and singular entry/exit point) for reasons to do with the condition of the rear plate at the time, and it is probable it never caught the SECOND exit either as this was all during night hours at a 24hr McDonald's and so the rear plate issue could not be addressed until the following day.

My disavowal of the charge to UKPC was short and sweet: one line telling them that the invoice was printed in error because it contained two entry shots. Naturally if the operator believes the vehicle had been on the premise for the period inbetween the first and second shots, then the burden of proof would have been on the claimant to provide the bay where it believed the vehicle had been, and an explanation for why its "exit" shows the FRONT of the car and not the rear.

UKPC resorted to its usual templated moonshine over what it says on the terms and conditions which, where UKPC are concerned, is not apposite. This is when  ANPR records a number plate for the first time, it allocates it as "entry" irrespective of direction of travel, ad in consequence, the following shot will be "exit". As the system is live 24/7, and as there are a gazillion and ten reasons for why the ANPR may have failed to make a capture (i.e. partially or fully obscured plate; being tailgated; wide angle of threshold; passing pedestrian blocking plate at moment the snapshot would have been taken; double-dipping; the list grows), an operator does not get to assume that two consecutive shots three weeks apart serve as evidence that a vehicle has been lodged on the premise for the intervening time. 

Mildly digressing, I had this once before with Parking Spy - and POPLA still sided with the parking company. Thankfully it was cancelled after I involved the management of the pub in question, explaining that the driver brought someone who ate there, and then left an hour later having been picked up. Eventually, PE wrote back to me telling me the charge was cancelled. Happy Days. But I knew I would have no joy from POPLA here and so I wrote to UKPC again to tell them that as I was concerned, TWO shots of the front mean that regarding meaning you're not even out of the gates yet on your claim. I want EVIDENCE from you for where the car was parked and WHY you have recorded its front both times. Until I was satisfied that someone drove my car in reverse, I was never going to supply driver details.

UKPC wrote back with the usual pony, "time to appeal has expired" and told me it was in the hands of DRP, a debt collector whose invoices offered no medium for discussion (just treating the claim as a cut and dried "debt") while we all know that the intricacies of parking charge conditions are not the competency of a debt collector.

Then came invoices from Zenith, and finally DCBL also in the capacity of debt collector - just before the latter revealed themselves to suddenly be the Claimant's legal representative.

So I responded, and instructed them to redress their substandard LBC. Their response? To claim that their document DID satisfy the protocols despite answering NONE of the questions I had for them except one: are they pursuing me as driver or keeper? And THIS is my concern for this thread. I had at every step of the way identified as REGISTERED KEEPER and there is evidence of this. DCB Legal claim to be pursuing me as "driver" based on arbitrary "balance of probability" in that I did not name anyone. If it gets to court, they may get a shock when the actual driver who most definitely was not its registered keeper (sorry to have disclosed this, but I can't proceed without it) provides a witness statement that the plate was mud-splattered having previous gone across a field on a very wet day, and that he drove twice, once to drop off a customer and then to collect the customer. The customer too will provide a witness statement. But my question is, since they claim to be pursuing me as driver SANS EVIDENCE, is what should I do here? Surely that is improper for them. I get the impression they are trying to circumvent POFA 2012, particularly with its clause of maximum sum from keeper being Notice to Owner figure (PS I have read the posts where judges have dismissed this as double recovery, even where Defendant was known to be driver). I'll get onto that one with DCB, just as I will very shortly send them the rest of the disavowal. There are OTHER infringements from DCB Legal and its client and I will draw these to their attention, just as I will hold their feet to the fire over repeating back to me my representations on the unlawful amount sought and their faulty evidence. I can reveal these in due course on this thread too if anyone asks, but for now, how do I go about this fallacious allocation of me as "driver"? (It's a case of affirming the consequent).

All replies welcome, and I will answer any question

Thanks
Mr Moon (nor my surname!) ))))








 

MrMoonsPointofview

Dear all

Sorry about the horrendous typing errors above. I thought I could edit them after posting.... I hope the message will still get through. If not, just ask what I meant with such and such.

Cheers

KeithP

I have concerns about you admitting - for whatever reason - to the vehicle having an unreadable rear number plate.

Remove that suggestion from your mind entirely.

MrMoonsPointofview

KeithP said:

I have concerns about you admitting - for whatever reason - to the vehicle having an unreadable rear number plate.

Remove that suggestion from your mind entirely.

It was mud-splattered, not one character could be read. I am aware of this as I at least had to get it washed the next day.

KeithP

MrMoonsPointofview said:

KeithP said:

I have concerns about you admitting - for whatever reason - to the vehicle having an unreadable rear number plate.

Remove that suggestion from your mind entirely.

It was mud-splattered, not one character could be read. I am aware of this as I at least had to get it washed the next day.

Still no need for you to point that out to anyone.
It looks like you are providing the parking company with the excuse they need. Let them fight their own case.

MrMoonsPointofview

KeithP said:

MrMoonsPointofview said:

KeithP said:

I have concerns about you admitting - for whatever reason - to the vehicle having an unreadable rear number plate.

Remove that suggestion from your mind entirely.

It was mud-splattered, not one character could be read. I am aware of this as I at least had to get it washed the next day.

Still no need for you to point that out to anyone.
It looks like you are providing the parking company with the excuse they need. Let them fight their own case.

Excuse for what? To admit they knew the car was not on the premise for the time claimed?

By the way. Do you have any advice as to what I need to do as I am being assigned the status of surrogate driver based on their own flawed logic. Any advice there?

Coupon-mad

But what you should do is respond robustly to DCBLegal by email (plenty of name@dcblegal emails to be found on this forum).

Attach the two images and in order to cover yourself in your duty to 'narrow the issues' and try to resolve the dispute at LBC stage, state that:


(a).  you will be reporting them and their client to the ICO and DVLA, because the ANPR images show two different entries and no exit, thus UKPC had no cause to obtain DVLA data at all, much less to share it and much less for DCBL group to process it;

(b). The keeper was not driving.  Liability is denied for any sum at all and it seems UKPC have not used the POFA and cannot claim keeper liability.  In the absence of evidence about POFA compliance in this case, this point will be deemed accepted.  The driver was a friend/family member who visited the site twice with no breach of any term.  That's two parking events, not one, so keeper liability falls at the first hurdle;

(c).  The registered keeper is at the end of their tether after this ongoing meritless harassment by UKPC and will issue a claim for £250 for damages arising by way of compensation for severe distress caused by UKPC's abuse of DVLA data and breach of the DPA 2018, should UKPC fail to cancel this farce of a parking charge by the end of October.

patient_dream

MrMoonsPointofview said:

KeithP said:

I have concerns about you admitting - for whatever reason - to the vehicle having an unreadable rear number plate.

Remove that suggestion from your mind entirely.

It was mud-splattered, not one character could be read. I am aware of this as I at least had to get it washed the next day.

Out of interest, if the number plate could not be read, what ANPR pictures did UKPC send you ?

You are aware that UKPC fake pictures ...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3229165/Is-PROOF-private-parking-firms-scamming-motorists-Drivers-say-timings-photos-doctored-legally-parked-cars-issued-fines.html

And you say DCBL are jerks ?   I think given what we see from this firm and their misguided claims,the real word is incompetence ?

MrMoonsPointofview

Coupon-mad said:

But what you should do is respond robustly to DCBLegal by email (plenty of name@dcblegal emails to be found on this forum).

Attach the two images and in order to cover yourself in your duty to 'narrow the issues' and try to resolve the dispute at LBC stage, state that:


(a).  you will be reporting them and their client to the ICO and DVLA, because the ANPR images show two different entries and no exit, thus UKPC had no cause to obtain DVLA data at all, much less to share it and much less for DCBL group to process it;

(b). The keeper was not driving.  Liability is denied for any sum at all and it seems UKPC have not used the POFA and cannot claim keeper liability.  In the absence of evidence about POFA compliance in this case, this point will be deemed accepted.  The driver was a friend/family member who visited the site twice with no breach of any term.  That's two parking events, not one, so keeper liability falls at the first hurdle;

(c).  The registered keeper is at the end of their tether after this ongoing meritless harassment by UKPC and will issue a claim for £250 for damages arising by way of compensation for severe distress caused by UKPC's abuse of DVLA data and breach of the DPA 2018, should UKPC fail to cancel this farce of a parking charge by the end of October.

Thank you so so much Coupon Mad - and can I also take this opportunity to congratulate you for the work you have done in debilitating the scammers these past years as I see from sticky posts.

What I meant to say in the original post (but it got muffled) was that the reason I have hitherto not shared information with UKPC is because they have supplied me with "evidence" that shows that they are not even out of the gates on the claim: its beginnings, never mind the onward problems and I assure you there are more of those. The site in question contains sings that say "90 mins max" and singularly fail to tell the motorist how soon he may resume parking (meaning there is the absence of a "No Return Within"), yet UKPC know all about these because they manage an adjacent car park where their wording very much specifies "No return within 4 fours". Here at this site, you don't violate the contract by shifting bay after 90 mins, nor engaging the camera by leaving, turning around and parking again - ergo, upon 90 mins of parking, the next time the driver may park begins as soon as the first session lapses, on and on ad infinitum. Then there is what I haven't hit them with yet: the two short visits to the car park occurred during darkness hours (plenty of these throughout January in the temperate zone of the northern hemisphere) . I have myself more recently returned to that car park to find there is NO ILLUMINATION whatsoever on their signs: their entry sign as at an angle that incoming drivers won't necessarily notice them; no signs are erected on the side that had all the light (i.e. where the Macs restaurant is), and all of them on the opposite end of the car park where no light reaches them, and they do not supply their own. The beauty of the recent photo I took during the night is that you can see a sign on the left that purports to tell motorists that parking conditions apply, only it is pitch black, while to the right flank of the entry is a clearly lit "Caution: Speed Bumps" sign since this gets light from the store. I know what it says in the BPA CoP on illumination, BUT I don't know where courts stand on this guide in 2022. I read somewhere it has been suspended, but that surely cannot mean open season for the scammers. Either way, my contention here is that NO DRIVER recorded arriving  during darkness hours has even entered into a contract with UKPC on this site, and if he has coughed up in the past, then he ought not to have done on this premise alone. Signage should be jumping out at you! It's not for the driver to enter, park, and then patrol the premise with his torch and a magnifying glass! )))

patient_dream

Could you please show us the in and out pictures from the ANPR

MrMoonsPointofview

patient_dream said:

Could you please show us the in and out pictures from the ANPR

Yes. Remind me please where to upload them.