UPDATE - DCBLegal - Draft Defence Review - **I'm an idiot. I called the debt collector.**

Fruitcake

aj54 said:

Fruitcake said:

aj54 said:

Thanks very much everyone.

I have written emails to Premier Inn, Parkmaven and DCB Legal stating that proof of purchase exists.

Umkomaas, I didn't reply at the time as I'd read somewhere that these things go away if you ignore them for long enough - I'll know better next time!

Let's see what they say....

Thanks again!

Did you do any of the other things I suggested? 

I went with your Plan A - complained to the landowner (Premier Inn) and wrote to DCB. I'm yet to write to my MP though.

To whom is the LoC addressed?
Did you decide to tell the PPC that the driver's identity has already been given?

Did you decide whether or not to name the driver in writing? You will not be able to do this after you receive a court claim. If you do name them, then this "should" reset the clock such that the PPC will have to issue a NTD and start the process again. 
I say "should" but there is no guarantee they will do so. If they don't, then it will become an additional defence point.

Have you checked to see if the NTK was or was not PoFA compliant? If not, then that will become an additional defence point.

Did you decide whether or not to request an extra 30 days. You should send an SAR to the DPO of the PPC. Whilst it won't make a huge difference, asking for the extra 30 days will mean you get the PPC's response before the claim arrives.

When the regulars ask questions, please answer all of them to ensure we have all the necessary information so we can give you the best advice possible.

Coupon-mad

My sister-in-law was also there and got a fine, even though she paid.

She appealed within the allotted time and was successful.

She also got a letter stating there was a technical error going from the booking platform (YourParkingSpace) to their PCN processing system. We have a copy of that letter.

Am I right in thinking that with this letter, and a bank statement showing the payment, we shouldn't have to worry?

You should be sending all of this to DCBLegal and to your local MP, asking the MP to please write to the BPA - AOS@britishparking.co.uk - and ParkMaven and DCBLegal to ask why they are pursuing a potential claim when Parkmaven already admitted to your SIL that there was a system glitch.

ALSO go to ParkMaven's website and lodge a formal complaint,  DO BOTH THINGS.

Coupon-mad

Oh, and...

IMPORTANT - ONLY 3 WEEKS LEFT:

Please concentrate on the Call For Evidence and sending an email to the DLUHC showing your £170 threatogram and system glitch evidence (redact your address).

Show the Government proof that DCB refused to listen to you and just continued to bully you for money. Tell them you have now enlisted the help of your MP as they - the parking firm and debt agent/solicitors - are not listening. The Government want to hear from consumers as well as PPCs and Question 4 is the one to answer, if you only do one.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6471857/please-reply-to-question-4-of-the-governments-call-for-evidence-re-the-level-of-parking-charges

Explained there.

PLEASE READ AND JOIN US!

It's one email. One question; will take minutes.

Make sure you attach letters to provide evidence.

Obviously state at the start of your email response to the DLUHC and in the subject line, that you are a consumer and are answering Question 4 on the parking Call for Evidence. 

Add that you want your evidence to help inform the DLUHC to confirm the decision to ban the added 'fee' because this is not genuine debt or dispute 'resolution' that's being funded.

Change the law... we already are...

aj54

Fruitcake said:

aj54 said:

Fruitcake said:

aj54 said:

Thanks very much everyone.

I have written emails to Premier Inn, Parkmaven and DCB Legal stating that proof of purchase exists.

Umkomaas, I didn't reply at the time as I'd read somewhere that these things go away if you ignore them for long enough - I'll know better next time!

Let's see what they say....

Thanks again!

Did you do any of the other things I suggested? 

I went with your Plan A - complained to the landowner (Premier Inn) and wrote to DCB. I'm yet to write to my MP though.

To whom is the LoC addressed?
Did you decide to tell the PPC that the driver's identity has already been given?

Did you decide whether or not to name the driver in writing? You will not be able to do this after you receive a court claim. If you do name them, then this "should" reset the clock such that the PPC will have to issue a NTD and start the process again. 
I say "should" but there is no guarantee they will do so. If they don't, then it will become an additional defence point.

Have you checked to see if the NTK was or was not PoFA compliant? If not, then that will become an additional defence point.

Did you decide whether or not to request an extra 30 days. You should send an SAR to the DPO of the PPC. Whilst it won't make a huge difference, asking for the extra 30 days will mean you get the PPC's response before the claim arrives.

When the regulars ask questions, please answer all of them to ensure we have all the necessary information so we can give you the best advice possible.

Thanks Fruitcake.

The LoC is addressed to me, the keeper, but not the driver.

I have not informed the PPC of the driver's identity - I sent them a complaint email stating we have proof of purchase and a copy of the letter from them to my SIL apologising for the glitch. Should I send another email stating I was not the driver?

I have told DCB Legal that the driver's identity has been given to them, although I didn't say when, how or who it is. I only revealed on the phone conversation.

The NTK is PoFA compliant.

I'll look into sending an SAR now - thanks!

aj54

Coupon-mad said:

My sister-in-law was also there and got a fine, even though she paid.

She appealed within the allotted time and was successful.

She also got a letter stating there was a technical error going from the booking platform (YourParkingSpace) to their PCN processing system. We have a copy of that letter.

Am I right in thinking that with this letter, and a bank statement showing the payment, we shouldn't have to worry?

You should be sending all of this to DCBLegal and to your local MP, asking the MP to please write to the BPA - AOS@britishparking.co.uk - and ParkMaven and DCBLegal to ask why they are pursuing a potential claim when Parkmaven already admitted to your SIL that there was a system glitch.

ALSO go to ParkMaven's website and lodge a formal complaint,  DO BOTH THINGS.

I have sent the bank statement and glitch letter to DCBLegal.

I'll also draft a letter to my local MP this afternoon.

Parkmaven only have a postal address for complaints and it states the complaint must be within 56 days of the incident. I'll send it this afternoon.

Thanks Coupon-mad!

aj54

Coupon-mad said:

Oh, and...

IMPORTANT - ONLY 3 WEEKS LEFT:

Please concentrate on the Call For Evidence and sending an email to the DLUHC showing your £170 threatogram and system glitch evidence (redact your address).

Show the Government proof that DCB refused to listen to you and just continued to bully you for money. Tell them you have now enlisted the help of your MP as they - the parking firm and debt agent/solicitors - are not listening. The Government want to hear from consumers as well as PPCs and Question 4 is the one to answer, if you only do one.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6471857/please-reply-to-question-4-of-the-governments-call-for-evidence-re-the-level-of-parking-charges

Explained there.

PLEASE READ AND JOIN US!

It's one email. One question; will take minutes.

Make sure you attach letters to provide evidence.

Obviously state at the start of your email response to the DLUHC and in the subject line, that you are a consumer and are answering Question 4 on the parking Call for Evidence. 

Add that you want your evidence to help inform the DLUHC to confirm the decision to ban the added 'fee' because this is not genuine debt or dispute 'resolution' that's being funded.

Change the law... we already are...

I'll definitely do this, however DCB Legal and Parkmaven have not given a response to my evidence yet. The emails were sent yesterday, DCB Legal were told over the phone the day before. Do I need to wait until they respond?

More than happy to help change the law!

Fruitcake

That's all good. I suggest you send the 30 day hold instruction around day 25/26 from the issue date of the LoC to ensure you get the response to the SAR back before a claim form arrives. It will also give you more time for your complaints to the landowner, your MP, the PPC, and DCB L.

You then have the option of naming the driver in writing before the 30 day hold runs out, or defending as keeper where one of your defence points will be that you are not the person liable for the charge since the driver's identity has already been given to the claimant and therefore liability has been transferred from the keeper.
As I said previously, naming the driver should stop a claim and reset the clock with the issue of a NTD to the driver giving the driver a chance to appeal, but there is no guarantee the PPC will do that. It could still result in a claim being issued further down the road if the driver gets the chance to appeal but still loses. PPCs don't make money by allowing appeals.

Since the NTK was PoFA compliant, the keeper can be held liable so there is no real advantage in naming the driver in my opinion, and doing so will negate the defence point that liability has already been transferred. If it were me, I would do the SAR, do the 30 day hold, do all the complaints, then if necessary defend a claim as keeper using all the standard defence points plus the one about already transferring liability, and the one about proof of a faulty system on the day.
Other opinions are available.

B789

Just to be clear... are you positive that the NtK is PoFA compliant? Not only the content but also the issue date of the NtK?

Coupon-mad

aj54 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Oh, and...

IMPORTANT - ONLY 3 WEEKS LEFT:

Please concentrate on the Call For Evidence and sending an email to the DLUHC showing your £170 threatogram and system glitch evidence (redact your address).

Show the Government proof that DCB refused to listen to you and just continued to bully you for money. Tell them you have now enlisted the help of your MP as they - the parking firm and debt agent/solicitors - are not listening. The Government want to hear from consumers as well as PPCs and Question 4 is the one to answer, if you only do one.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6471857/please-reply-to-question-4-of-the-governments-call-for-evidence-re-the-level-of-parking-charges

Explained there.

PLEASE READ AND JOIN US!

It's one email. One question; will take minutes.

Make sure you attach letters to provide evidence.

Obviously state at the start of your email response to the DLUHC and in the subject line, that you are a consumer and are answering Question 4 on the parking Call for Evidence. 

Add that you want your evidence to help inform the DLUHC to confirm the decision to ban the added 'fee' because this is not genuine debt or dispute 'resolution' that's being funded.

Change the law... we already are...

I'll definitely do this, however DCB Legal and Parkmaven have not given a response to my evidence yet. The emails were sent yesterday, DCB Legal were told over the phone the day before. Do I need to wait until they respond?

More than happy to help change the law!

If you read the link you know the DLUHC's deadline.  Diarise to do the response within 2 weeks from now.

Even better evidence if you can phone up DCBLegal next week and prove their unreasonableness by recording the call (as I suggest in the linked thread).

aj54

Fruitcake said:

That's all good. I suggest you send the 30 day hold instruction around day 25/26 from the issue date of the LoC to ensure you get the response to the SAR back before a claim form arrives. It will also give you more time for your complaints to the landowner, your MP, the PPC, and DCB L.

You then have the option of naming the driver in writing before the 30 day hold runs out, or defending as keeper where one of your defence points will be that you are not the person liable for the charge since the driver's identity has already been given to the claimant and therefore liability has been transferred from the keeper.
As I said previously, naming the driver should stop a claim and reset the clock with the issue of a NTD to the driver giving the driver a chance to appeal, but there is no guarantee the PPC will do that. It could still result in a claim being issued further down the road if the driver gets the chance to appeal but still loses. PPCs don't make money by allowing appeals.

Since the NTK was PoFA compliant, the keeper can be held liable so there is no real advantage in naming the driver in my opinion, and doing so will negate the defence point that liability has already been transferred. If it were me, I would do the SAR, do the 30 day hold, do all the complaints, then if necessary defend a claim as keeper using all the standard defence points plus the one about already transferring liability, and the one about proof of a faulty system on the day.
Other opinions are available.

DCB have just got back to me. They've said the evidence supplied is for a different reference (obviously, they've been told it was for a separate vehicle, but same time and place!)

They've also asked me to name the driver so they can write to them and ensure the address is serviceable. If correct, liability will be transferred.

From your comments, you don't think there is an advantage to naming the driver? I haven't named them with PPC yet, only DCB via phone conversation.