DCB Legal - Response to first email

Snayl86

Hi all,

Long time hoverer here. I have a PCN from 2019 from my private parking space where the residential permit slipped out of the window and into the passenger footwell. As per so many, the amount is £160, £100 invoice and £60 'charges'.  Received the LoC DCBL 'Legal' (ha!) 


Have sent a SAR to the PPC, and the initial email (deny the debt, seeking debt advice, what legal authority do you have to add the £60 etc...)

This is the response from this afternoon:

Dear XXXX,

 

We write in response to your email dated 26th May 2023. 

For clarity, the sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by our Client as a result of your non-payment. Our Client’s employees have spent time and material attempting to recover the debt. This is not our Client’s usual business and the resources could have been better spent in other areas of the business. Had you of paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so the amount due would not have increased.

In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, where the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) becomes overdue and before Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be added for the debt recovery fees. The correct recovery fees have been added and will not be removed. As such, the outstanding balance of £160.00 remains payable to prevent further action.     You now have 30 days from the date of this e-mail to pay the outstanding balance of £160.    Failure to do so will result in a claim being issued against you without further notice.   This can be done via bank transfer to our designated client account: -  Would anyone like to help me craft a response to this? I'm still laughing...

Umkomaas

Would anyone like to help me craft a response to this? I'm still laughing...

Check out the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, advising how to respond to a Letter of Claim. 

Coupon-mad

You don't respond to that drivel.  Standard stuff.  You WANT the doomed court claim, of course!

Snayl86

Coupon-mad said:

You don't respond to that drivel.  Standard stuff.  You WANT the doomed court claim, of course!

It's so tempting to just go back with "Neither I nor the judge are bound by the BPA code of practice, you know it, I know it and so do these judges, so quit while you're behind" I must admit.

Snayl86

Umkomaas said:

Would anyone like to help me craft a response to this? I'm still laughing...

Check out the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, advising how to respond to a Letter of Claim. 

I've read it and (more than likely my own fault) I'm missing something, because I can't see anything specific to "The BPA code of practice says..." 

Umkomaas

Snayl86 said:

Umkomaas said:

Would anyone like to help me craft a response to this? I'm still laughing...

Check out the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, advising how to respond to a Letter of Claim. 

I've read it and (more than likely my own fault) I'm missing something, because I can't see anything specific to "The BPA code of practice says..." 

It won't be specific to particular scenarios introduced by the solicitors. And don't forget that as well as BPA members, the 4 or 5 roboclaim solicitors are also representing IPC members. Just send a strong rebuttal - debt denied, any claim will be robustly defended, and I will be claiming costs. 

Alternatively, just send your own suggestion.  

It's so tempting to just go back with "Neither I nor the judge are bound by the BPA code of practice, you know it, I know it and so do these judges, so quit while you're behind" I must admit.

Let's see their response.

B789

Oh what fun we can have with this level of intellectual malnourishment from the DCB Legal dimwits.

Try this for starters:

Please clarify the following discrepancies in your invoice for the alleged debt you claim the driver of vehicle with the VRM of AA123BCD owes you. Your initial invoice claimed that the driver could pay the sum of £60 to cover the alleged debt which, presumably, includes everything needed to cover the cost of operating your business.

If you have not received the £60 you are attempting to charge the driver after 14 days, you then increase the charge to £100 without giving a breakdown of the increase. One could be led to believe that the extra £40 is to cover the additional business operation to include the supposed extra work needed to attempt the recovery of the alleged debt which has now increased to £100.

You then go on to add a further £60 as an arbitrary sum which you call "debt recovery" costs. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I intend to challenge this alleged debt all the way to court, assuming your company has the fortitude and intellectual ability to "go all the way". Assuming your company really is populated with individuals who have some legal training and the basic intelligence that is expected to go with that, you will be fully aware that this letter and the questions it raises about a breakdown of the actual costs claimed will be presented as evidence and will require justification.

So, please provide me, the registered keeper, with a complete breakdown, to the nearest penny, including any VAT, of all costs above and beyond the initial £60 you are attempting to charge the driver for allegedly breaching an imaginary contract with you. I expect the court to be able to decide which costs above and beyond the initial charge are eligible to be claimed in a small claims hearing should your company have the nerve to actually "go all the way" with your speculative invoice for this alleged debt.

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't.  This is a waste of time that I stopped one excitable poster doing a couple of years ago as it was such a waste if everyone's time, not least the Defendant.

Revenge is a dish best served cold by the DLUHC.

1505grandad

" Had you of paid as per the Contract,......."

Which ppc did you not of paid?

Le_Kirk

Had you of paid as per the Contract

Did they really write that?

Coupon-mad

Surely not!  This from a so-called solicitor?

"Had you of paid"

Are they taking on illiterate staff now? A joke!