LBC Received - Robust Response Guidance Appreciated

DinoGal

Good morning,

I received a parking charge from National Parking Control Group Limited for 'parking' in a restricted area (I didn't technically 'park', I stopped for a few mins with the engine running whilst I picked my son up from work).  I appealed against it using their online form, which was unsuccessful (I wish I had found this forum before I wrote the appeal!).  I have ignored all the 'scary' debt collector letters, but now have a LoC from DCB Legal.

I've complained to the landowner and am awaiting a response (which I will follow up on at the end of this week), but in the meantime I have used the forum to attempt to draft up a robust LBC response, and was wondering if you could provide guidance on anything further I can add or any changes required.  Also, should I request a SAR? I read on one thread to request one, but another suggested to hold off.  In the meantime, here is my response to the LBC (which was received dated 16th Oct 2023):

'Dear Sirs,

Reference PCN XXXXXX, dated 28 Jan 2023

I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP of debt claims 2017.

I confirm my 'address for service' as:

XXXX

I dispute the above parking charge.  The car was not parked, it was stopped briefly with the engine running for a few minutes and the driver did not leave the vehicle.  Your signage is non-prominent and the terms poorly drafted.  There was no breach of contract.

If the landowners do not intend for patrons to stop in the area, it is their gift to mark it out as such (for example, double yellow lines) which would have communicated the prohibition and avoided entrapment of drivers by ambiguity.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) states at S.69. (1):

"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."

This is an objective statement.  It requires no interpretation nor invites any legal argument about an unclear or ambiguous term to decide what it really says.  Instead, it focuses on difference.  If a trader wo drafted terms thinks that a term means A, but a consumer sees two conflicting messages and/or has a reasonable belief that it means B, there is no longer any need to decide which of A and B is the intended or more probable meaning.  The mere presence of different understandings reasonably held allows the consumer to prevail - without further discussion.

The vehicle stopped briefly in an area that was understood to be permissible for a short amount of time (a matter of minutes).

I demand immediate acknowledgement of my Email on <date when this will be sent>.

Yours faithfully,
XXXX'

Fruitcake

You have admitted that you were parked. It matters not if you didn't leave the vehicle or whether the engine was or was not running, it is still parking. Forget that as a defence point. 

Do not do an SAR if the PoC are vague (the claim is that the driver breached Ts and Cs at the site but didn't detail which Ts and Cs were breached).

Look up Jopson v Homeguard where the judge stated that loading/unloading (goods or people) is not parking.

Follow the guide to court in the second post of the NEWBIES and the template defence sticky Announcement that also includes a twelve step guide, and get photos of the site and signage.

Coupon-mad

Remove all this below. Far too much knowledge of the terms and alleged breach is being disclosed, and it's also not DCB Legal's signage:

Your signage is non-prominent and the terms poorly drafted.  There was no breach of contract.
If the landowners do not intend for patrons to stop in the area, it is their gift to mark it out as such (for example, double yellow lines) which would have communicated the prohibition and avoided entrapment of drivers by ambiguity.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) states at S.69. (1):
"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."
This is an objective statement.  It requires no interpretation nor invites any legal argument about an unclear or ambiguous term to decide what it really says.  Instead, it focuses on difference.  If a trader wo drafted terms thinks that a term means A, but a consumer sees two conflicting messages and/or has a reasonable belief that it means B, there is no longer any need to decide which of A and B is the intended or more probable meaning.  The mere presence of different understandings reasonably held allows the consumer to prevail - without further discussion.

...and the ending is so weak I don't know where posters are getting it from! Which example has this weak sentence?

"I demand immediate acknowledgement of my Email on <date when this will be sent>."

Please read some robust LBC responses written by me. You do not see that ending!

DinoGal

Many thanks for the helpful comments.

The PCN I received was actually pretty detailed I guess, in that it does call out that my ‘reason for issue’ is ‘Parked on a roadway where prohibited’, with images from a site camera included on the notice. The reason is also included on subsequent correspondence from DCBL. In this case, should I request a SAR and does that warrant keeping in the wording above?

With respect to the wording at the end, I searched for ‘robust LBC responses’, selected newest and then searched through a few of the newest threads to have popped up, I thought I had managed to find the ones that had been through review and agreed but perhaps I got an earlier draft.

Your guidance is so useful and very much appreciated, I will most certainly look for a few more LBC response letters from yourselves and look at Jopson v Homeguard and come back to this thread with an updated draft.

Coupon-mad

I think you looked at an early draft of one the other day, where I advised the person to change that horribly weak ending. And they did. Their final draft is in their thread.

The PCN I received was actually pretty detailed I guess, in that it does call out that my ‘reason for issue’ is ‘Parked on a roadway where prohibited’, with images from a site camera included on the notice.

No, that's standard. We knew the PCN had the breach on it. Always does.

The reason is also included on subsequent correspondence from DCBL. In this case, should I request a SAR?

No. There is no current suggestion in the NEWBIES thread to send a SAR. You don't want that.

My advice has not changed.  

UncleThomasCobley

It's DCB Legal... why bother responding. just wait for the inevitable shoddy claim and defend with CEL v Chan at the beginning and wait for them to discontinue or get spanked in court.

DinoGal

Thank you so much! I’ll revert back with an updated letter once I’ve done a bit more digging as per your guidance.

DinoGal

Evening all,

I’ve gone away and done some more digging and have come up with a rework, please see below. I’m not sure about the paragraph disputing the parking charge - I wonder whether that should be saved as part of my defence should it get to court, or do I add it here in the hope it puts them off? As per @UncleThomasCobley’s point, perhaps I just let the 30 days lapse and start building my defence now?! To be honest it gives me a headache and I just want to get them to go away hahaha!

‘Dear Sirs,

Reference PCN’s:

28/01/2023 PCN xxxxxx

I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

I confirm my 'address for service’ as:

xxx

I dispute the above parking charges.  The new statutory Code of Practice (temporarily stalled but it is being reintroduced by the Government after an Impact Assessment in 2023 which will only address monetary issues, not other clauses) defines 'parking' as not including picking up or setting down passengers. In the statutory definitions, it says at 2.19 (parked/parking) that parking is "an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain stationary other than in the course of driving (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers leave or enter the vehicle)". As the vehicle stopped briefly in order to pick up a passenger, by definition the vehicle was not parked. I also refer you to the case of Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities (case number B9GF0A9E), whereby His Honour Judge J Harris QC states "getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration" is not parking. This was an appeal court case and thus persuasive on the lower courts. 

The message for your client is to cease and desist, and if they fail to understand, may I refer them - and you - to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

Yours faithfully,

X’

@Coupon-Mad - I found a few more of your drafts and you are right - this ending is much better and gave me a chuckle!

Coupon-mad

That big paragraph needs splitting into two but it's much better and can make them think twice.

DinoGal

Perfect thank you, I’ll tidy it up and send it in the morning. I’ll keep you posted as to any developments!

Thank you so much again for your time, I’d have been at my wits end without this forum and your expertise!

DinoGal

Hi all,

By means of an update, I submitted the response this morning and have just had a reply. They are not backing down, still stating no parking allowed and I was parked. They’ve acknowledged the 30 day hold period, by which time if they haven’t received £160 (fine as per the signage is £100) they will submit a claim. They also very kindly sent me an image of the signage, so I’ll add that to my evidence etc for my defence.

They’ve asked that I provide a phone number - is this a good idea or shall I ignore the request?

I will now get cracking on the next steps wrt compiling my defence!