NPC issued PCNs for parking in my own parking space

WASD42

Good day, everyone, long time no see For months, I thought NPC (National Parking Control Group Limited) and DCBL had dropped the case, but here we are -- I've just received two Letters of Claim from DBC Legal, claiming 640 and 160 quid.

I would appreciate it if you could review the following "robust response". Do I need to add or remove something, or is it complete bs and needs to be re-written from scratch:

----

Dear Sirs/Madams, 

I refer to your endless threatening letters (your ref: ..., ...) and am writing to formally dispute the false claims of inflated debt that have been asserted against me. This letter serves as both a comprehensive rebuttal of the aforementioned claims and a stern warning of my intention to vigorously defend my rights and pursue a counterclaim should any further action be pursued without due merit.

Furthermore, I must inform you that I am seeking debt advice, although I deny any debt, and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

It is imperative to make it unequivocally clear that the PCNs in question are fundamentally flawed. The charges stem from a technical inadequacy within the prospective Claimant's (your client - National Parking Control) system that has incorrectly deemed my vehicles, parked legitimately in my own designated parking space, as noncompliant. This issue was formally acknowledged by NPC, yet it has not prevented the relentless pursuit of these charges. Moreover, I have observed with dismay your client's agent's wanton disregard for personal property, as evidenced by the physical uncovering and causing damage to it. This action, beyond being disrespectful, indicates a concerning lack of professional decorum and is illegal.

I have, in good faith, engaged in protracted communication with NPC to resolve these erroneous charges, which has been met with bureaucratic sluggishness and a distressing lack of competence or reasonable solution. To exacerbate matters, your firm has embarked on an unrelenting campaign of correspondence demanding exorbitant fees.

The tactics employed by your client and DCBL, from the sheer volume of communication and misleading charges and fees to the tone of threats within, could easily be construed as intimidation. As a result, I am compelled to remind you that such conduct is not only reprehensible but arguably falls afoul of the ethical and legal standards expected of firms operating within your sector.

Additionally, I must inform you that I have escalated this matter to my Member of Parliament, ... ..., detailing the unprofessional conduct of National Parking Control, DCB Legal, and DCBL. The distress caused by your firm’s actions and the subsequent financial demands have necessitated a review at the highest levels of public service. My complaint to the MP articulates the aggressive and arguably illegal tactics deployed in pursuing these unjustified charges and the profound personal impact it has had on my circumstances.

Therefore, I demand the immediate cessation of all debt recovery actions against me and a thorough audit of the processes that led to this deeply flawed enforcement attempt.

Failure to comply will leave me with no choice but to take further action. This may include, but is not limited to, reporting this matter to the relevant regulatory authorities and consumer protection agencies.

I trust you will take this letter with the seriousness it warrants and act promptly to address the issues raised.

----

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Hmmmmm...

What you clearly need to do is IGNORE THE £160 LBC and let that one roll quickly forward to a court claim first!

Delay only the big one and do not refer to the other one.  Do not talk about 'letters' (plural) only refer to the LBC about the £640 proposed claim and get that put on hold.

ONLY respond asking for a 'hold' at the end of the first 30 days that the LBC gives.  That will drag the bigger claim into 2024 and you should see the £160 claim in December.

EXACTLY the way round you want.

UncleThomasCobley

Essence of ChatGPT is wafting aromatically from that response. If you know how, put it into SDAN mode and get a proper snottogram response. Also get rid of the verbose prose that has been injected by ChatGPT into that letter.

If you are asking for the 30 day hold (why?) don't send your response until day 29 otherwise it is pointless asking for it.

KeithP

WASD42 said:

Good day, everyone, long time no see For months, I thought NCP (National Parking Control Group Limited) and DCBL had dropped the case...

Please remind us... what is the name of the parking company involved?

Your sentence above mentions two different companies...
1) NCP - National Car Parks Ltd, and
2) National Parking Control Group Limited

Coupon-mad

I wish people wouldn't use ChatGPT!
It's horrible.

WASD42

Damn it, I forgot to press Post Comment after Previewing the post!

Thanks for your advice, guys!

I've received the letters on Fri, November 3rd, but they are both dated October 16th. So I'll message DCB Legal on November 15th.

UncleThomasCobley said:

Essence of ChatGPT is wafting aromatically from that response. If you know how, put it into SDAN mode and get a proper snottogram response. Also get rid of the verbose prose that has been injected by ChatGPT into that letter.

If you are asking for the 30 day hold (why?) don't send your response until day 29 otherwise it is pointless asking for it.

AFAIK DAN is not possible in either GPT4 or GBP 3.5; at least I could not find any working prompt since summer, but in my experience, v4 is not as bad. The above draft was handwritten first (spent days going through the forum but the situation with being "charged" for parking in your own space does not seem to be that widespread) and then rewritten by v4 following a style of a few "robust replies" posted here, but I do agree it's a bit over the line.

I'd like to hold with no particular reason but to collect more views on the situation and prepare, I guess, as I'm not as legally savvy as many on this forum.

KeithP said:

WASD42 said:

Good day, everyone, long time no see For months, I thought NCP (National Parking Control Group Limited) and DCBL had dropped the case...

Please remind us... what is the name of the parking company involved?

Your sentence above mentions two different companies...
1) NCP - National Car Parks Ltd, and
2) National Parking Control Group Limited

Thanks, fixed, it's NPC (National Parking Control Group Limited).

-----
Here's what I intend to send. It is lengthy, but it seems that everything is relevant to the case:
1. The first two paragraphs tell that I don't accept the claim and that I am looking for debt advice.
2. Next two paragraphs go about why I don't agree with the claim or any alleged "violation".
3. The next part raises questions about DCB Legal breaking SRA's policies and procedures.
4. Followed by request for evidence supporting the claim, if they want to proceed.
5. Counter-claim details if they'll proceed (damages for distress, GDPR violation, etc).
6. Mentioning that I've looped in an MP.

Dear Sirs/Madams, 

I refer to your latest threatening letter (your ref: ...) and am writing to formally dispute the false claim of inflated debt that has been asserted against me. This letter serves as both a comprehensive rebuttal of the aforementioned claims and a stern warning of my intention to vigorously defend my rights and pursue a counterclaim should any further action be pursued without due merit.

Furthermore, I must inform you that I am seeking debt advice, although I deny any debt, and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

It is imperative to make it unequivocally clear that the PCNs in question are fundamentally flawed. The charges stem from a technical inadequacy within the prospective Claimant's (your client - National Parking Control) system that has incorrectly deemed my vehicles, parked legitimately in my own designated parking space, as non-compliant. NPC formally acknowledged this issue in writing, yet it has not prevented the relentless pursuit of these charges. Moreover, I have observed with dismay your client's warden's wanton disregard for personal property, as evidenced by the physical uncovering and causing damage to it, as confirmed by NPC. Beyond being disrespectful, this action indicates a concerning lack of professional decorum and may be seen as illegal.

I have, in good faith, engaged in protracted communication with NPC to resolve these erroneous charges, which have been met with bureaucratic sluggishness and a distressing lack of competence or reasonable solution. To exacerbate matters, your firm has embarked on an unrelenting campaign of correspondence demanding exorbitant fees.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has established comprehensive policies and procedures that are designed to ensure that solicitors conduct themselves in a manner that upholds the highest standards of professionalism, ethics, and transparency. In this case, it is abundantly clear that your actions have fallen woefully short of the SRA's guidelines.

Specifically, I would draw your attention to the following breaches of the SRA's policies and procedures:

Failure to Conduct a Proper Investigation: Your firm's lack of due diligence in investigating the veracity of the alleged debt is deeply troubling. It is evident that no comprehensive assessment of the facts has been undertaken, leading to erroneous claims being made against me. This negligent approach contradicts the SRA's requirement for solicitors to act with reasonable skill, care, and diligence.

Failure to Provide Sufficient Evidence: Your failure to provide adequate evidence to substantiate the alleged debt is a blatant violation of the SRA's principles of transparency and fairness. I insist that you immediately provide me with comprehensive documentation supporting your claim, including but not limited to copies of any agreements, invoices, or notices pertaining to the alleged parking charge.

Inflated Debt and Misrepresentation: It has come to my attention that the amount being claimed by your firm far exceeds any reasonable estimation of the alleged debt. This inflated figure appears to be a clear attempt to intimidate and coerce me into an unjust settlement. Such behaviour is expressly prohibited by the SRA's guidelines and constitutes a breach of your professional obligations.

Addressing the Sufficient Evidence section: the claim fails to provide copies of evidence your client relies upon. I hope your client knows that as of 1 October 2017, a new protocol applies to debt claims. In line with both the previously applicable Practice Direction and the current Pre-Action Protocol, I am requesting that your client, should they wish to pursue this, provide the below information as they are required to:

1. An explanation of the cause of action.

2. Whether they are pursuing me as a driver or keeper.

3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

4. What the details of the claim are: where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, and how the monies being claimed arise and have been calculated?

5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? Please provide the names of the parties to it and provide me a copy of that contract.

6. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1

7. A plan showing where any signs were displayed.

8. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)

Given the aforementioned breaches and the overall lack of credibility in your assertions, I hereby demand that all further action in this matter be immediately ceased. This includes any attempts to pursue legal proceedings, commence debt collection activities, or tarnish my reputation in any way.

Failure to comply with this request will leave me with no choice but to defend my rights vigorously through all available legal channels and, furthermore, to initiate a counterclaim against your firm for negligent or deliberate data abuse. To be clear, the tactics employed by your client and DCBL, from misleading wording about charges and fees and the sheer volume of communication to the tone of threats within, constitute unwarranted harassment. I dispute the quantum and object to the intimidatory, unethical nature of the entire operation. The conduct of your client and their agents (including your firm) has amounted to an unfair commercial practice, which is prohibited under regulation 3 of the CPTURs and a misleading action within the meaning of regulations 5 and 6, for which redress is available under regulation 27(J)(b).

Your clients have no cause of action and must stop. Kindly inform your clients that if a claim is filed, I will counterclaim, and I will seek damages for distress and/or breach of statutory duty pursuant to the following:

a) damages for distress caused by the Claimants' breach of statutory duty and misleading actions within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as amended by the Consumer Protection Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 2014 ("the Regulations"); 

b) damages for distress caused by the Claimants' breach of statutory duty arising from breaches of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA');

c) damages for distress caused by a breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation ('the GDPR');

d) damages for distress caused by harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ('the PFHA') ref section 3.

Personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully. Your clients stand in breach of Article 5 (1) of the GDPR (the requirement for lawfulness, fairness and transparency) and the doctrines of open dealing and good faith in the CRA. There was no violation of published Parking Conditions. Accordingly, the processing of my DVLA data was not "necessary for the performance of, or commencing, a contract", since no such contract existed. I will be reporting your clients to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for the initial processing and for sharing and allowing my data to be misused by National Car Parks, DCBL and DCB Legal to send various misleading communications. 

By operating in a predatory fashion, your clients had no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA. In accordance with Principles 1,2 and 5 of the Data Protection Principles, they were not permitted to either obtain, process or keep it. Your client had, and still has, no prospect of furthering their purpose and no legitimate cause to continue processing my data.

Additionally, I must inform you that I have escalated this matter to my Member of Parliament, ... ..., detailing the unprofessional conduct of National Parking Control, DCB Legal, and DCBL. The distress caused by your firm's actions and the subsequent financial demands have necessitated a review at the highest levels of public service. My complaint to the MP articulates the aggressive tactics deployed in pursuing these unjustified charges and the profound personal impact they have had on my circumstances, as well as requests this evidence to be added to the Parliament's Private Parking Code of Practice Call for Evidence.

I trust you will take this letter with the seriousness it warrants and act promptly to address the issues raised. To ensure the proper handling of this dispute and to protect my rights, I request that you provide a written response within 14 days of receipt of this letter. Your clients must take stock of their position and cease immediately. If your clients ignore this fair warning, as mentioned above, I will file a counterclaim, as well as a robust defense, and will also pursue my entire costs to this case pursuant to Part 27.14(2)(g) of the Civil Procedure Rules due to their wholly unreasonable conduct.

Yours faithfully,

Based on a few posts (thanks a lot!):
- https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80112296/#Comment_80112296
- https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79609792#Comment_79609792
- https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80098665/#Comment_80098665
- https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6357976/new-query/p7

Coupon-mad

Some of those cases are a bit old, and in your draft you are disclosing and asking for far too much information that you actually DON'T want, pre-action!

Read the Template Defence and the recent CEL v Chan appeal case shown in that thread, to understand why I say, do not disclose your hand.

You WANT the court claim with no info!

Remove all of this:

It is imperative to make it unequivocally clear that the PCNs in question are fundamentally flawed. The charges stem from a technical inadequacy within the prospective Claimant's (your client - National Parking Control) system that has incorrectly deemed my vehicles, parked legitimately in my own designated parking space, as non-compliant. NPC formally acknowledged this issue in writing, yet it has not prevented the relentless pursuit of these charges. Moreover, I have observed with dismay your client's warden's wanton disregard for personal property, as evidenced by the physical uncovering and causing damage to it, as confirmed by NPC. Beyond being disrespectful, this action indicates a concerning lack of professional decorum and may be seen as illegal.

I have, in good faith, engaged in protracted communication with NPC to resolve these erroneous charges, which have been met with bureaucratic sluggishness and a distressing lack of competence or reasonable solution. To exacerbate matters, your firm has embarked on an unrelenting campaign of correspondence demanding exorbitant fees.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has established comprehensive policies and procedures that are designed to ensure that solicitors conduct themselves in a manner that upholds the highest standards of professionalism, ethics, and transparency. In this case, it is abundantly clear that your actions have fallen woefully short of the SRA's guidelines.

Specifically, I would draw your attention to the following breaches of the SRA's policies and procedures:

Failure to Conduct a Proper Investigation: Your firm's lack of due diligence in investigating the veracity of the alleged debt is deeply troubling. It is evident that no comprehensive assessment of the facts has been undertaken, leading to erroneous claims being made against me. This negligent approach contradicts the SRA's requirement for solicitors to act with reasonable skill, care, and diligence.

Failure to Provide Sufficient Evidence: Your failure to provide adequate evidence to substantiate the alleged debt is a blatant violation of the SRA's principles of transparency and fairness. I insist that you immediately provide me with comprehensive documentation supporting your claim, including but not limited to copies of any agreements, invoices, or notices pertaining to the alleged parking charge.

Inflated Debt and Misrepresentation: It has come to my attention that the amount being claimed by your firm far exceeds any reasonable estimation of the alleged debt. This inflated figure appears to be a clear attempt to intimidate and coerce me into an unjust settlement. Such behaviour is expressly prohibited by the SRA's guidelines and constitutes a breach of your professional obligations.

Addressing the Sufficient Evidence section: the claim fails to provide copies of evidence your client relies upon. I hope your client knows that as of 1 October 2017, a new protocol applies to debt claims. In line with both the previously applicable Practice Direction and the current Pre-Action Protocol, I am requesting that your client, should they wish to pursue this, provide the below information as they are required to:

1. An explanation of the cause of action.

2. Whether they are pursuing me as a driver or keeper.

3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

4. What the details of the claim are: where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, and how the monies being claimed arise and have been calculated?

5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? Please provide the names of the parties to it and provide me a copy of that contract.

6. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1

7. A plan showing where any signs were displayed.

8. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)

Given the aforementioned breaches and the overall lack of credibility in your assertions, I hereby demand that all further action in this matter be immediately ceased. This includes any attempts to pursue legal proceedings, commence debt collection activities, or tarnish my reputation in any way.

Failure to comply with this request will leave me with no choice but to defend my rights vigorously through all available legal channels and, furthermore, to initiate a counterclaim against your firm for negligent or deliberate data abuse. To be clear, the tactics employed by your client and DCBL, from misleading wording about charges and fees and the sheer volume of communication to the tone of threats within, constitute unwarranted harassment. I dispute the quantum and object to the intimidatory, unethical nature of the entire operation. The conduct of your client and their agents (including your firm) has amounted to an unfair commercial practice, which is prohibited under regulation 3 of the CPTURs and a misleading action within the meaning of regulations 5 and 6, for which redress is available under regulation 27(J)(b).

WASD42

Got it! Thanks, this totally makes sense!

WASD42

Hey all.

Just received a Claim Form by post for the smaller PCN (160 quid + %) dated 23 November and giving me 14 days, so I guess I proceed with the online Acknowledgement of Service somewhere around Dec 10th (following this https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0) and then write a Defence, roughly based on this https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74708527#Comment_74708527, but in my case I would rather avoid mentioning lease, as it specifically says 1 vehicle, although it's not what PCN were issued for (no valid permit displayed or no e-permit):

The (exclusive) right to park one private motor vehicle in the Parking Areas in such parking space as the Landlord may from time to time designate and notify to the Tenant in writing subject to the display of a current valid parking permit issued by the Landlord or the Management Company AND the Landlord hereby notifies the Tenant that the initial parking space shall be the Initial Parking Space herein before defined.

They also replied to my robust response regarding a larger claim by just sending a generic answer that they are going to proceed with the claim and attaching all the same photos I saw on the PCNs and giving me 30 days to pay. What would you recommend with this case?

Is there a way to move the case to a different court as the one they are calling me to is in Northampton, 90 miles away from where I am?

Thanks!

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on the County Court Claim Form?
Later in the process you get to choose where any hearing takes place.