DCB Legal Letter of Claim

Le_Kirk

DisruptiveLad said:

I can't seem to see his posts. 

Click on the name @Johny86 and you will be taken to his profile, scroll down and you will see his discussions and replies.

DisruptiveLad

Cheers. Got the hang of it now. She has sent a rebuttal of their Letter of Claim, but didn't admit to the car being where they said it was. Their picture evidence doesn't prove the car was there. What next?

DisruptiveLad

This is the response from Charlotte Evans of DCB Legal to my wife's rebuttal of their previous Letter of Claim. What are people's opinions on this? I will do a separate post containing DCB Legal's eventual response to the SAR request after initially saying it should have been UKPC receiving the request. They had obviously been in contact with each other.

We write further to your recent correspondence dated 3rd of April 2023 following our Letter of Claim (LOC).

For clarity, DCB Legal have been instructed by our Client to pursue yourself for the unpaid Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on 24th July 2022 at McDonalds Ardwick for parking longer than the maximum duration permitted.

The terms and conditions of the land are set out on the signage displayed. The signs on the land state that there is a ’90 minutes maximum stay’ permitted (please see a copy attached). As you will be aware from the notice to keeper, the vehicle entered the land at 20:42pm and exited at 22:48pm and therefore parked for a total duration of 2 hours 6 minutes. However, we note that you state the pictures do not show your vehicle parked on the land. Our Client utilises Automatic Number Plate Recognition (“ANPR”) technology where the parking charge notice was issued in order to manage the parking. This means that cameras capable of recognising the registration number of a vehicle are constantly monitoring the entrance and exit to the land.  A photograph is taken of each vehicle as it enters and exits. Any vehicle found to have breached the terms of parking will be issued with a PCN via the post. 

When parking on private land, the contractual terms are set out on the signage displayed. By parking and staying on the land, you are agreeing to the terms and entering into a contract with our Client. Parking in breach of the stipulated terms means the contract has been broken. We would always advise that when parking on private land, you are vigilant to ensure you can correctly adhere to the terms displayed to prevent a Charge being issued.

Furthermore, I note from correspondence that you state you were not the driver at the time of the contravention. Should you wish to nominate the individual that was please send their name and a serviceable address to ourselves at your earliest convenience, however, should a serviceable address not be provided, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 you will be pursued as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

The outstanding balance of your debt is £160.00 which must be paid 30 days from the date of this email.

To complete this you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 434 0437 to make payment over the telephone or online at https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/

Alternatively, payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account:

Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account

Sort Code: 20-24-09

Account Number: 60964441

You must quote the correct case reference (101473.140866D) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.

 

Please note failure to make the above payment will result in a claim being issued against you without further notice. 

Kind Regards,  

 

DisruptiveLad

Here is DCB Legal's eventual (and unexpected) response to the SAR. I have taken out the personal details.

Again, what do people think? See some points from me in bold.

We can confirm that the personal data DCB Legal hold on file for you is as follows:-

 

                        Name:            

                        Address:        

                        Email:             

                       

                       

DCB Legal can confirm the following details regarding the PCN: -

 

                        PCN Date: 24/07/2022

                        PCN Ref: 9487422205890

                        Vehicle Reg: YO21...

                        PCN Location: McDonalds Ardwick 327,129 Stockport Road, Ardwick, M12 4AB

                        Reason for PCN: Parked for longer than the maximum period permitted

 

 

Any email correspondence you will already have copies of due to being either the sender or recipient of the correspondence.

My note to this is: The original appeal to UKPC was done through their website. There is no mention of any communication on this SAR of those communications. In that appeal I did say the driver of the vehicle was doing business with McDonald's and had receipts to prove it. They never asked for that evidence in their rejection of the appeal.

Also, a small thing, but perhaps a legal point; they state the vehicle was at McDonalds. The fast-food company is McDonald's (with the apostrophe). This is the English teacher and journalist coming out in me. Is there a legal point here with the business name? There would be any number of businesses called McDonalds...

Your data was transferred to DCB Legal by the instructing case Client, Uk Parking Control Limited, who are the Data Controller in the matter. Your data is processed on the basis of “performance of a contract” and/or “legitimate interest”.

This is the extent of the personal data held on file by DCB Legal and this response concludes your Subject Access Request to DCB Legal.

Yours faithfully

DPO

DCB Legal Ltd

Le_Kirk

Dealing with the SAR first, the usual reason for submitting a SAR is to find out all that they have on you and this should go to the  PPC. Is there anything that you still don't know?
Their response to your rebuttal of their LOC just lays out their case but I am sure you knew that from their initial PCN and LOC. I see they give you a chance to name the driver and that's a well tried ploy by PPCs where the initial PCN is not POFA compliant and the driver has not been identified.  Without going back through the thread, I don’t know. Is it or is it not compliant? Has the driver ever been identified to the PPC? If/when you receive a N1 claim form,  what will your defence be to their claim of overstaying?

DisruptiveLad

What makes the PCN compliant or otherwise? The driver has never been identified to UKPC or DCB Legal. Should it be kept that way? Defence is driver has receipts to show business was done over a period on the date. Also, the spelling of McDonald's is legally incorrect. 

patient_dream

DisruptiveLad said:

What makes the PCN compliant or otherwise? The driver has never been identified to UKPC or DCB Legal. Should it be kept that way? Defence is driver has receipts to show business was done over a period on the date. Also, the spelling of McDonald's is legally incorrect. 

Firstly, just ignore the spelling of McDonald's, that will not help, just put it down to an ignorant staff member of DCBL

You never talk about the driver.

If you have read other DCBL/UKPC cases on here, you will understand that UKPC cases are utter rubbish 

Fruitcake

Compare the NTK with the PoFA 2012 and play spot the difference.
UKPC's NTKs are usually PoFA compliant, but only you can confirm this.

If the NTK was compliant it will have arrived by day 14, the date of the alleged event being day zero, and will have the wording of the warning mentioned in para 9 of the PoFA.

DisruptiveLad

So, does my wife re-send her rebuttal letter updating it to say DCB Legal failed in their response to address the issues raised? Does she again reiterate they have no photographic evidence of any contravention? Does she admit the vehicle was there and state there are receipts to show the occupants bought goods from the business? Then should she quote Michael Kelly of McDonald's, who in an earlier case, stated spaces were needed to allow people to do business? The receipts would show business transactions being carried out.

Coupon-mad

Nope.  No point.  They won't go away.

Either let them move forward to the inevitable court claim or (if the driver is a stronger defendant who will.cope better with writing a defence, and possibly having to attend a hearing, etc) she can still name the driver now and give their address. She has a short window to do that.  It will be too late to do that once a claim is issued.

You haven't said what your 'spot the difference' exercise revealed when you compared the NTK wording to para 9 of Schedule 4.  Compliant or not?