Parkingeye PCN and letter of claim from DCB Legal

Maluma_Fan

Hello, I was wondering if anyone could help out? I have only recently seen a letter of claim from dcb legal (not limited) that I received on 28 June regarding an unpaid PCN from Parkingeye from last year. I had paid for an hour of parking (2:05pm – 3:05pm) as I thought the appointment I had would take 45 minutes, however this overran and my phone had died so by the time I managed to get to a charger the time had gone up but I then paid for another hour of parking through the pay by phone app (3:19 – 4:19pm) thinking I might have some leeway time. I’m pretty sure I returned to the car park before 4.19 but it took a while to get shopping and a child adjusted into the car. The PCN states I was there from 2:01pm – 4:24pm. Dcb legal is now demanding I pay £170 within 30 days (giving me a few days now). I ignored the original PCNs so did not appeal it before.

I have read the newbies about steps to take but I don’t know if I have much of a defence and if I should just pay it? I don’t want to go to court. Other people have unclear signs as defence, which I don’t and I have read PE is different. But I have also read not to pay and that PE only use dbc legal when they don’t have much footing? So, I have requested SAR from PE following the advice on newbies. I have found the landowners of the car park but was wondering what to say in an email to them? I don’t know if I should write that I am willing to pay the £100 fine but not the extra 70 dcb added? Do I pay or wait it out until I get a letter from court?  Any advice on what I should do will be welcome.

Umkomaas

Unusual, but of late we've seen a couple, for PE to contract out litigation to a third party, as they have their own in-house team of solicitors and litigation staff and have always conducted their own court cases. To my knowledge we've yet to see any PE/DCB Legal cases actually reach a court hearing. This is likely to be an exercise in the tightening of thumbscrews to extract money from you. But, play a straight bat for now. 

So, respond to the Letter of Claim, as per advice in the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post.

I have found the landowners of the car park but was wondering what to say in an email to them?

What you told us above, but I wouldn't mention that you might have 'overstayed' as a result of loading shopping and child into the car, but you could ask them what the agreed Grace Period at the end of parking had they negotiated with PE.

I don’t know if I should write that I am willing to pay the £100 fine but not the extra 70 dcb added? 

An immediate admission of 'guilt'.  They won't accept £100, because the extra £70 is DCB Legal's bounty, and they wouldn't throw that away in order to 'help' you.  A judge however, in the event of losing the case, will knock out the £70 add-on ........ if it ever gets that far, which I doubt.  Too early, in my view, to be capitulating.  The forum will help you through this. 

Coupon-mad

You CERTAINLY do not pay it!

And DCBLegal filing an inflated claim for ParkingEye is far, far better than PEye filing them via their own litigation team, because if you defend and do everything we advise, DCBLegal will discontinue before the hearing!

You should respond saying you are seeking debt advice and require a '30 day hold' as is your right under the pre-action protocol. Add that the charge is fully disputed because two payments were made to cover parking time and you suspect this is why ParkingEye didn't litigate this case 'in-house', because they know they have no case and they chose DCBLegal knowing that they just play a 'numbers game' seeking default CCJs then discontinuing those that are well defended.

Finish by telling them to cease and desist.

Don't go into detail about timings of payments. DCBLegal don't need detail as they will file a claim anyway in late August and that is the 'home straight' stage when you will win!

patient_dream

And to add to above comments ..... Parking Eye will be going against their own Supreme Court win where the court said clearly that the charge of £85 (that was before the money scammers increased it to £100) .... was set to include the operation of the scheme ...... IE: NO FAKE ADD-ON like £70

The fake was approved by the BPA and DCBL really do think it's real ... 
Infact, DCBL has never answered what authority they have, it's certainly not a legal authority
In the past DCBL has called this fake ... "admin costs", "debt recovery costs" and their latest little wheeze is to call it "damages" ALL RUBBISH

Such terrible conduct by DCBL actually makes Parking Eye look like money scammers and stupid.

But there is another clue to these bed fellows ..... both Parking Eye and DCBL are on the council of representatives in the BPA organisation

A CARTEL ..... probably and it all gets closer to a WONGA style operation, and we all know what happened to WONGA

With the forthcoming government consultation, please be ready to voice your views on these companies who are so desperate to get your money

As said, follow the forum, DCBL are UK famous because they discontinue claims. Total timewasters who waste your time and the courts, let alone tax payers money.

The question is, will Parking Eye want to be rubbished in court because of fakery .... big choices for them now

Maluma_Fan

Umkomaas said:

So, respond to the Letter of Claim, as per advice in the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post.

I don’t know if I should write that I am willing to pay the £100 fine but not the extra 70 dcb added? 

An immediate admission of 'guilt'.  They won't accept £100, because the extra £70 is DCB Legal's bounty, and they wouldn't throw that away in order to 'help' you.  A judge however, in the event of losing the case, will knock out the £70 add-on ........ if it ever gets that far, which I doubt.  Too early, in my view, to be capitulating.  The forum will help you through this. 

 Coupon-mad said:

You should respond saying you are seeking debt advice and require a '30 day hold' as is your right under the pre-action protocol. Add that the charge is fully disputed because two payments were made to cover parking time and you suspect this is why ParkingEye didn't litigate this case 'in-house', because they know they have no case and they chose DCBLegal knowing that they just play a 'numbers game' seeking default CCJs then discontinuing those that are well defended.

Finish by telling them to cease and desist.

Don't go into detail about timings of payments. DCBLegal don't need detail as they will file a claim anyway in late August and that is the 'home straight' stage when you will win!

Thank you both. I have now responded to DCB legal's letter of claim using the above advise. I have written to the landowner and asked about if there was an agreed grace period but did not include the admission of guilt so did not offer to make any payment just complain about the management and to take business elsewhere. I have heard back from PE regarding the SAR where they confirmed they have received it and it will be issued within the applicable timeframe as per GDPR obligations. Is there anything else to do at this stage? Or is it now a waiting game until late August? 

Umkomaas

Or is it now a waiting game until late August? 

Yes, although during that time the DLUHC will be coming out to public consultation on the level of the parking charge and on whether debt collection charges can be added to the charge. It will be announced here on the forum via the following thread, plus there will be another (new) thread for guidance on responses. Please look out for these (and/or bookmark the below thread) and make your views known to Govt via the consultation process. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333989/mse-parking-ticket-appeals-guide-feedback#latest

B789

@Maluma_Fan, you must understand that this is a winnable case. You are being scammed and any thought about paying them a penny, never mind admitting guilt and forking out £100, would be playing right into their scam and becoming a part of the problem by funding it.

Do exactly as advised, wait now for the inevitable claim and then defend it robustly using the template defence and you can expect the claim to be eventually discontinued

Your letter to the landowner should be a complaint telling them to get their agents, PE, to cancel the PCN. They are jointly liable for the actions of their agents and you intend to follow this all the way to a court hearing if necessary and so they may want to consult their legal advisors.

Maluma_Fan

Hello, just an update. I did not hear back from the landowner and I have just seen a letter Claim Form which was issued on 05 Sept and I will need to respond ASAP so would really appreciate if anyone has any advise. Do I complete the acknowledgement of service section and if so do I select select the option for defending all of this claim? 

KeithP

You have left your MCOL password and your Mercedes vehicle's registration mark clearly visible on that image you have shown us.

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th September, you have until Monday 25th September to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 9th October 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute. 

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Coupon-mad

And read the thread about the HHJ Murch judgment.  You need to add transcripts like in the thread by @andyl3004

patient_dream

OH DEAR ...... another junk claim from DCBL

£70 fake add-on .... calling it DAMAGES and signed by the infamous Yasmin Mia

Yasmin Mia should carefully read this

PRACTICE DIRECTION 22 – STATEMENTS OF TRUTH

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part22/pd_part22

You can read the penalty for a false statement