Received letter from debt collector for private parking fine, PCN sent to wrong address

ProfessorBean

thank you both @Gr1pr & @LDast. I will start a new thread on the new case.

sticking then to the case detailed in this thread, do I have the correct email address + format to send in response to the LoC? I've followed post 2 on NEWBIES thread but can't seem to find a definitive email address for the DCBLegal Ltd in the forum.  

LDast

Any correspondence from DCB Legal usually has their info@dcblegal.co.uk email address on it. Use that.

ProfessorBean

Ok, above is the email I sent to DCBL.

Below is their response:


So again a vague threat of a claim if I don't meet there new 30 day deadline. I can't see anything in NEWBIES about a set response to this though I may have missed it.

KeithP

So nothing in that response about VAT.
You asked a question. They have failed to answer it. Press them on that point.

Coupon-mad

Yep, get a response, then report them to HMRC as seen in every thread about DCB and VAT.

ProfessorBean

update: I responded to their email pushing them for a response on VAT etc. I sent this email on 21/08/24 and have not received a response.

I have now received a 'Claim Form' letter from The County Court. it says the claimant is BaySentry Solutions LTD and the address for sending documents & payments is DCB Legal LTD... I received on 03/10, says I must respond within 14 days of service (5 days after issue date), meaning I have until 22/10.

I'm trying my best to read and understand what to do next from the newbies thread; am I now supposed to make an MCOL/AOS and then send a defence to 'ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk'?

Coupon-mad

What is the date of issue?

Show is the POC (cover your VRM).

Do not show the whole claim form.

ProfessorBean

date of issue: 03/10/24

I've been away for over a week and have only just found the letter

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd October, you have until Tuesday 22nd October 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 Tuesday 5th November 2024 to file a Defence.

That's nearly three 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

In your OP You told us this:

"I did indeed arrive at the car park in question before realising I had driven to the wrong destination, and I then left. Within a 2hr period, I did indeed return to that same car park. Secondly, in email correspondence with DCBL I have learned the owner of the car park (BaySentry) sent a PCN to my previous address. I therefore was completely unaware of any PCN until I received this debt collection letter."

So I suggest this as your paragraph 3 (facts):

3.  It is denied that there were two periods of parking. The first arrival captured by the Claimant's ANPR camera on the material date was a brief 'in and out' error as the Defendant realised they had driven into the wrong car park. The data from that entry should not have been stored, because the Defendant did not stay and the British Parking Association ('BPA') rules mean that event should have been ignored by applying the required grace period, allowing for people to leave and not accept any 'parking contract'.

3.1. There was no breach because the later (only) 'period of parking' that day was within the allowed time.  It would be absurd and disingenuous for a professional parking firm to apply a 'no return' clause (intended to stop people from extending their stay by deliberately driving out then in again after the maximum free period was reached) to a situation such as this, where the first entry was insignificant. Applying the 'no return' term in these circumstances is rogue practice and denies custom for the onsite businesses by literally driving potential customers away who have merely crossed the threshold earlier that day. This is clearly an unfair term when considered by the court in accordance with their s71 duty in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

3.2. The Defendant did not learn about the PCN which was posted to an old address. It will be common ground that the Defendant was denied any opportunity to appeal, even once the Claimant's agents traced the right address. This despite the BPA Code of Practice (mirroring the Government's published Code from 2022) requiring that where a PCN was clearly not received due to an old address being used, operators must pause debt recovery and reissue the PCN at the original rate including offering the right to appeal from scratch. That did not happen. Instead, DCB Legal fobbed off the Defendant and issued a claim (one of over a hundred thousand boilerplate roboclaims churned out annually by that 'law firm') which is a clear abuse of both the BPA Code and the pre-action protocol.