DCB Legal - Letter of Claim

KeithP

Coupon-mad said:

DO NOT send a SAR to the PPC.  The defence by @Johny86 tells you why you really don't want an early SAR reply.  Of course not!   Not yet.

It's confusing...

In the opening post the OP appears to be considering sending a SAR to UKPC, but just over six hours later he tells us...

I haven't been issued any images of the signs in the SAR from UKPC...

Coupon-mad

Oh...never mind! No harm done...

...but for other lurkers, an early (LBC stage) SAR wasn't needed.

In DCBLegal cases we should ideally, IMHO, just advise people to tell DCBLegal that they are on MSE, are not a random victim and to go swivel, plus state the basis of defence (to look reasonable, as part of an otherwise pretty rude "get stuffed" recommended response to bulk litigator bullyboys).

Saying they are "seeking debt advice" is also not right for everyone, particularly in early Summer when people might know they are going to be away in July or August and so, an EARLIER claim is better for them to handle.

B789

Here is a suggestion you may want to adapt as a response to their LoC:

Dear DCB Legal,

In response to your Letter of Claim on behalf of your client, UKPC, I do not appreciate your need to pursue any alleged debts owed to UKPC. I must inform you that if you do issue a claim, I will be defending it robustly.

As a regular visitor to the MoneySavingExpert Parking Forums, I am well aware of your modus operandi and educated enough to know how to handle your scattergun approach to firing off claims. I am also aware that your claims are usually baseless and that they rely on the hope that the recipients will be intimidated into paying the demanded amount. However, I can assure you that I am not intimidated and will fully defend myself.

Therefore, I suggest that you stop wasting our time with what we both know will result in a discontinuation before any claim reaches court. You may as well save your client the court fee and concentrate on other, more gullible victims of your robo-claims instead of chasing after me.

I will not be making any payment to you or engaging in any negotiation with regard to this matter. Should you proceed with a claim on behalf of UKPC, I will defend it and seek to recover all costs incurred as a result of any baseless claim.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]

Stokielad

Not_A_Hope said:

So so they are alleging you parked in an area designated for registered users not that you didn’t pay for parking or overstayed. The PDT data may help to prove you visited the car park as a law abiding paying customer if you had to input your VRN (or perhaps you still have the ticket). If you wanted to mention it in your defence you can put them to strict proof you paid and they will have to provide the PDT data for any future court hearing.

However poor signage and the the lack of clearly marked bays are going to be significant defence points. Have you got photos yet?

As already pointed out a robust defence is likely to see UKPC and their DCBL sidekicks eventually discontinue.

I didn't get chance over the bank holiday weekend. From the images below their is no obvious PDT machine in the car park, not to say their isn't one inside. I was actually doing a friend a favour picking him and his daughter up from the venue, I had finished my shopping earlier than expected so instead of driving home and back again decided to park up and wait at the venue, I was parked in the blue bay and never left my vehicle.

There is no signage at the entrance to the car park, a small sign (sign 2) located over the far side, I do remember on the day the car park being full of Chelsea tractors which would have obscured the sign on the far side . Sign 1 is conveniently located between the entrance and exit and is easy to miss when exiting the car park. I'll head their tomorrow early evening and take some better images of the sign and their T&Cs.

Stokielad

Not_A_Hope said:

Have you appealed the PCN since September last year and inadvertently told them who was driving? Was the NTK POFA compliant?

I haven't appealed the PCN, I thought it was best to just ignore the letters from UKPC and ZZPS. The NTK is compliant and I haven't confirmed who was driving when requested the SAR.

Stokielad

KeithP said:

Coupon-mad said:

DO NOT send a SAR to the PPC.  The defence by @Johny86 tells you why you really don't want an early SAR reply.  Of course not!   Not yet.

It's confusing...

In the opening post the OP appears to be considering sending a SAR to UKPC, but just over six hours later he tells us...

I haven't been issued any images of the signs in the SAR from UKPC...

Unfortunately I requested and received the SAR from the DPO on the 5th May. Excluding any records of a PDT machine.

Stokielad

B789 said:

Here is a suggestion you may want to adapt as a response to their LoC:

Dear DCB Legal,

In response to your Letter of Claim on behalf of your client, UKPC, I do not appreciate your need to pursue any alleged debts owed to UKPC. I must inform you that if you do issue a claim, I will be defending it robustly.

As a regular visitor to the MoneySavingExpert Parking Forums, I am well aware of your modus operandi and educated enough to know how to handle your scattergun approach to firing off claims. I am also aware that your claims are usually baseless and that they rely on the hope that the recipients will be intimidated into paying the demanded amount. However, I can assure you that I am not intimidated and will fully defend myself.

Therefore, I suggest that you stop wasting our time with what we both know will result in a discontinuation before any claim reaches court. You may as well save your client the court fee and concentrate on other, more gullible victims of your robo-claims instead of chasing after me.

I will not be making any payment to you or engaging in any negotiation with regard to this matter. Should you proceed with a claim on behalf of UKPC, I will defend it and seek to recover all costs incurred as a result of any baseless claim.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]

This letter is spot on, definitely my kind of approach! I didn't see the need to change anything so left it as is and responded to info@dcblegal.co.uk. I'm sure it'll stir the hornets nest so I'll await the response. 

Not_A_Hope

If you did not get out of the car and pay for parking there won’t be any record of payment so there is no point in asking for PDT data.

If the NTK is POFA compliant there is no point in using POFA as a defence.

However I don’t believe many judges would consider those signs are capable of forming a contract with you. UKPC have form in have crap signs that drivers do not see and they rely on the fact that most people pay up rather than fight them.

Fruitcake

I would add to B789's comments a link to the thread about UKPC/DCBL discontinuations and state that you expect your case to be added to the current count of NNN.

B789

I would be happy to hazard a guess that the PCN is not PoFA compliant, even though they state it is. Can you post a copy of the PCN (both sides) to see the actual wording they have used?

I believe that the example PoFA wording used in a research article I'm putting together was from a UKPC PCN. I reproduce it here for clarification but it is not quite finished:

Is the PCN PoFA 2012 compliant?

Here is a sample of text that a private parking company (PPC) has put in their Notice to Keeper (NtK). The NtK was a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by post to the registered keeper (RK) with no Notice to Driver (NtD) PCN attached to the windscreen by a parking attendant. This type of PCN/NtK is issued when the vehicle's "time on site" has been recorded automatically by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. However, does this bit of text actually make the PCN PoFA compliant so that they can pursue the RK instead of the driver?

"If, after a period of 28 days (beginning on the day after this Parking Charge is given), the amount requested in this Parking Charge has not been paid in full (or we have not been informed of the driver's name and current address), you, the registered keeper, will, subject to the conditions of, and under the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, be liable to pay the unpaid Parking Charge. If no payment or representation is received within 28 days the outstanding debt will be forwarded to a debt recovery agency, at which point additional charges will apply in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking."

The excerpt above seems to contain some of the key elements required by PoFA 2012, such as:

1. Referring to the registered keeper: The text mentions "you, the registered keeper," which indicates that it is addressing the person responsible for the vehicle.

2. Liability of the registered keeper: The statement states that if the Parking Charge remains unpaid or the driver's name and current address are not provided within 28 days, the registered keeper will be liable to pay the outstanding charge. This is in line with the provisions of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.

3. Debt recovery agency and additional charges: The text mentions that if no payment or representation is received within 28 days, the outstanding debt will be forwarded to a debt recovery agency, and additional charges will apply as per the parking terms and conditions of parking.

While these elements appear to align with the general requirements of PoFA 2012, overall compliance with the act depends on other specific requirements and details outlined in the legislation.

Under PoFA 2012, the ability to add charges to the original charge sum is outlined in Schedule 4 of the Act. According to Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5), it states:

"The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 9(2)(f) or (4) (including any unpaid charges to which that paragraph applies) less any payments towards the unpaid charges."

This means that the maximum amount that can be recovered from the RK is the amount specified in the NtK, which includes any unpaid charges, minus any payments made toward those charges. It is important to note that the specific wording and requirements may vary depending on the circumstances and the content of the NtK such as whether the original PCN was issued as a NtD attached to the vehicle or is an initial postal PCN/NtK or a PCN/Notice to Hirer (NtH) of a leased vehicle. You need to understand your rights and obligations in accordance with PoFA 2012 and any applicable regulations.

So, according to PoFA 2012, an NtK must specify the amount of the parking charge. If the NtK only states the original £100 charge and does not provide any specific details about "additional charges" that may apply, the threat of additional charges is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.

PoFA 2012 sets out specific guidelines and conditions for the recovery of unpaid parking charges from the RK. These guidelines include transparency and clarity in the NtK, ensuring that the keeper or driver is aware of the exact amount they are liable to pay.

If a parking company intends to add additional charges, they should clearly state this in the NtK, specifying the circumstances under which these charges may be applied and providing a reasonable estimate of the potential additional charges. Vague statements such as "additional charges will apply" without further explanation are not compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.

Also, the NtK should specify the relevant paragraph under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 that applies to the specific circumstances of the notice. In the example above, where a postal NtK was issued and no NtD was attached to the vehicle, the NtK should mention that PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2) applies. This ensures that the recipient of the NtK is aware of the specific legal provisions that govern their liability and the procedures to be followed.

The purpose of including the specific paragraph reference is to provide clarity and transparency regarding the legal basis for the parking charge and the rights and obligations of the registered keeper. If the NtK does not clearly state the specific paragraph under Schedule 4 that applies to the notice, it does not satisfy the requirements of PoFA 2012.

In conclusion, the original PoFA 2012 paragraph in the example NtK, is not PoFA 2012 compliant even though it claims to be so.