PCN for parking on own property, from parking company contracted by building management company.

LDast

The parking charge was never £60. It was always £100 with a "mugs discount" of £40.

FUDbyDesign

LDast said:

The parking charge was never £60. It was always £100 with a "mugs discount" of £40.

Yeah, I just quoted the wording on their paperwork. Bunch of chancers.

FUDbyDesign

The next nail-biting episode in this enthralling series. On 1st November, I emailed DCB Legal Ltd. with the aforementioned message, copied pretty much verbatim from the stickies but with the demand amount corrected as per @Coupon-mad  . Their reply came quicker than expected - see below. 

I see that they are now saying "Failure to make payment will result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference." (emphasis is mine).  Should I move this thread to another section of the forum at this point?  Please advise. 

Thanks!

PS. "Had you of paid..."

---

Dear xxxxx,

 

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office dated 01/11/2024.

 

We now respond to the same as follows.

 

The HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration manual’ (VATSC06140), which was last updated on 02 September 2020, confirmed that parking charge notices falls out of the scope of VAT. There is no requirement for a VAT invoice to be issued to you.

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. BPA - 24.1b “Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue and before Court Proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum (which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added for the debt recovery fees. This sum must not exceed £70 unless prior approval from the BPA has been granted”. The correct recovery fees have been added to each Parking Charge and will not be removed.

  

You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment of £340.00. Failure to make payment will result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference.

Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -

• Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account 
• Sort Code: 20-24-09 
• Account Number: 60964441

You must quote the correct case reference (xxxxx.xxxxx) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.

 

Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to make payment over the telephone or online at https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.

 

Kind Regards,

xxxxxxxxx

Litigation Support Associate

KeithP

FUDbyDesign said:

Should I move this thread to another section of the forum at this point?  Please advise. 

Continue all discussion about this parking incident on this thread please.

Do you perhaps want to mask the unique case reference in that letter you have shown us?

FUDbyDesign

KeithP said:

FUDbyDesign said:

Should I move this thread to another section of the forum at this point?  Please advise. 

Continue all discussion about this parking incident on this thread please.

Do you perhaps want to mask the unique case reference in that letter you have shown us?

Thank you for spotting that!  I've masked it now.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for that reply and do the HMRC VAT concerns report now, same as everyone. We didn't need to see the reply.

And in terms of your ongoing complaint to the MA, I think this 'landmark' case could also be useful to you. I found it this week when randomly Googling:

DUCHESS OF BEDFORD HOUSE RTM COMPANY LIMITED & ORS V CAMPDEN HILL GATE LTD [2023] EWCA Civ 1470

It reaffirms residential parking rights using not only a fair interpretation of the lease but also section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

It's a Court of Appeal authority (the Supreme Court refused an application to appeal it):

https://www.edwincoe.com/blogs/main/the-supreme-court-has-effectively-confirmed-the-approach-of-the-court-of-appeal-in-applying-the-rule-in-newman-v-jones-and-on-how-to-interpret-lease-clauses/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/6576d76952aae60ac079d0bd?utm_source=amp&target=amp_jtext

That case reaffirmed leaseholders' rights under section 62 to use 'first come first served' bays in a car parking area at their estate:

"The residents of Duchess of Bedford House are relieved and delighted at this decision. After having had their right to park restricted by parking tickets and even clamping for periods over the last 30 years, they can park in the road outside their flats with full confidence in their right to do so."

Even Shakespeare Martineau blogged about it:

https://www.shma.co.uk/our-thoughts/duchess-of-bedford-house-case-have-we-gone-parking-mad/

HTH

FUDbyDesign

@Coupon-mad
What a really great find - thank you!  It's a recent ruling too.  Will definitely be keeping this in mind when dealing with the MA.  

Concerning the letter from DCB Legal, I will proceed as per existing guidance and provide further updates on this thread.  

By the way - apropos of nothing - someone suggested simply removing the number plates and hiding the VIN when parked so that the PPC can't issue a PCN.  I guess that could work, but then wouldn't the MA be able to claim the vehicle is abandoned and request it be impounded?  

h2g2

FUDbyDesign said:

By the way - apropos of nothing - someone suggested simply removing the number plates and hiding the VIN when parked so that the PPC can't issue a PCN.  I guess that could work, but then wouldn't the MA be able to claim the vehicle is abandoned and request it be impounded?  

It gets a bit hairy here, I think. I know someone in my block of flats has been putting "decorative" (i.e. false) plates over his own when parked knowing that it costs the PPC to make a DVLA request. I don't know what the easements and agreements are, but if the easement says you may use the space to park a "roadworthy vehicle" (a reasonably common wording) there's a decent argument that a car with a "decorative" plate or with the plate removed is not roadworthy in that condition, and they could take action against you for that. (This is speculative.)

If you're on land in open air, the vehicle is likely to be considered abandoned due to missing a number plate and it is possible that it could be removed as such.

I don't know whether it is likely to happen, but it seems to be possible and as such I'd advise against it.

FUDbyDesign

h2g2 said:

I don't know whether it is likely to happen, but it seems to be possible and as such I'd advise against it.

Thanks. I was just asking out of curiosity, really. The lease doesn't mention the roadworthiness of the vehicle per se, but nonetheless I don't intend to find out what might or might not happen. Ain't nobody got time for that. The proper solution is to cancel the PPC contract, which is my objective although it's an uphill battle with our utterly useless MA.  

FUDbyDesign

Combining my own wording with another forum user's ace response, I've come up with this as a reply to DCB Legal.  Hope you don't mind me running it by you for a sanity check before sending.

---

Your ref: xxxxxx.xxxxx
PCN Refs: xxxxxxxx / xxxxxxxx
Claimant: Capital Car Park Control Ltd

Dear xxxxx,

With reference to your message, here are my original questions and your responses.

Q1. Does the additional £140 constitute your so-called 'Debt Recovery' fee?

• Your response: None

Q2. If the amount is inclusive of VAT, why would I be asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

• Your response: "Please note, the HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration manual’ (VATSC06140), which was last updated on 02 September 2020, confirmed that parking charge notices fall out of the scope of VAT."
• My response: That is not the case for "Debt Recovery" fees.  Hence, I require a response to Q1 together with a detailed breakdown of the interest, administrative fees and any other charges, as per Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.  

Q3. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

• Your response: "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. BPA - 24.1b “Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue and before Court Proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum (which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added for the debt recovery fees. This sum must not exceed £70 unless prior approval from the BPA has been granted”. The correct recovery fees have been added to each Parking Charge and will not be removed."
• My response: This fails to answer the question.  

Frankly, I am dismayed that a firm of solicitors is unable to provide answers to these most basic questions.  Furthermore, the wording is obviously a cut-and-paste job (and a poor one at that) and the presence of grammatical errors indicates a lack of rigour and professionalism.  

Should you wish to proceed with a claim, rest assured that my defence will be clear, robust and unflinching.  I would therefore advise you to save yourselves and your client further embarrassment and desist immediately from the process which you initiated.  

Regards,

---

Does that sound about right?  Thanks!