dcb legal letter

teslarium

Hi,
hope eveyone is well,
I am new to this website and want to apologise in advance if I jumped ahead and not followed certain rules. I am currently in process of familiarising myself with the website, but wanted to post this first to get some reassurance. I have received the attached letter form dcb legal, its for a parking fine 3 years ago. I have changed address in the mean time and did not received any previous letters, most likely they were sent to the previous address.
long story short, I appealed, then Popla and now I requested SAR. 

What is next in this whole process, I feel like I should pay and move on, or wait for more letters? Thank you  

Grizebeck

No dont pay
This ISNT a letter before claim. Its a less common DCB legal chaser letter
Do nothing else at this stage

Coupon-mad

We did see a Parking Eye claim filed by DCBLegal a couple of months ago with the added false +£70, so it seems ParkingEye are one of the large PPCs who have newly signed some cases over to DCB Group, instead of recovering the PCN themselves.

That is a misleading letter and does NOT follow the pre-action protocol.  It is not a LBC.  It only gives you 14 days to reply and cannot lead to a claim.

It is ONLY a debt demand like the others.  It is 'signed' by DCBLegal but I think this is sent by DCB Ltd.  It demands payment to DCB Ltd and says DCBLegal won't reply if you try to contact them - so clearly (IMHO)  the solicitor arm didn't send this letter and are not 'instructed' by PEye.

DCB Ltd sent it.

But this move by PEye (if it involves a large batch of old cases) will leach millions from victims who would normally 'only' have had a LBCCC from P/Eye for £100.

What happened when you complained to the landowner?

Retail Park, Hospital or where and what was your appeal that lost at POPLA?

England?

teslarium

Popla Assessor : Refused
Someone else appealed on behalf of me. 

Appeal info: No keeper liability can be applied; as there is statutory wording within the notice of keeper,, the signage was not clear on site as the text was to small to read and does not state the clear purpose of ANPR cameras and that they will be used to record vehicle ref number entering and exiting the site, The operator did not comply with the consumer contract regulation,, the ANPR systems are inaccurate,,,There is a secured cancellation clause,, The PCR charge is disproportionate, quoted parking eye vs  Beavis in support for the appeal. 

Conclusion : therefore, Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre estimate of loss. I remain satisfied that the evidence submitted to me shows that the operator does have the relevant authorisation to manage the car park and issue Parking charges accordingly. As such I conclude the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly i must refuse this appeal. 

It’s in England, it was the parking to an area where there was restaurants so I guess it’s a  retail park.

Coupon-mad

Ok so your way to stop this (possibly) is a complaint to the agents/landowner of the retail park.

I would try that. But no panic. because there is nothing to stop, for the reasons I already explained.  That is not a LBC. 

patient_dream

teslarium said:

Hi,
hope eveyone is well,
I am new to this website and want to apologise in advance if I jumped ahead and not followed certain rules. I am currently in process of familiarising myself with the website, but wanted to post this first to get some reassurance. I have received the attached letter form dcb legal, its for a parking fine 3 years ago. I have changed address in the mean time and did not received any previous letters, most likely they were sent to the previous address.
long story short, I appealed, then Popla and now I requested SAR. 

What is next in this whole process, I feel like I should pay and move on, or wait for more letters? Thank you  

WOW, that is a copy of WONGA, who were destroyed by the FCA FOR FAKERY

WONGA invented a fake legal name to scam.  They were fined a huge amount and in the end they closed

Now, DCBL are not using a fake name but they are saying ...
"We have been asked by Direct Collection Bailiffs (DCBL) Ltd om behalf of Parking Eye"  THIS IS MISLEADING INFORMATION BY DCBL

SAME COMPANY, SAME FAKE 

Why would Parking Eye instruct a company who has bailiffs in their name when it has not been to court yet

Why would Parking Eye instruct any dodgy legal who adds a fake £70 which is against the Supreme Court ruling ... Parking Eye v Barry Beavis

This is another WONGA situation and you must report DCBL to the FCA FOR INVESTIGATION AS YOU, AND MANY OTHERS are being lied to

Contact your MP about this latest Wonga style scam

teslarium

I have reported this to FCA via submission form on their website. I will keep you updated on their response. Thank you