'PCN NOW CANCELLED' data privacy & complaints NPC Group, DCB Legal, DVLA, IPC, ICO & MP

Coupon-mad

Ah yes, changed to MHCLG. Good.

I am a natural cynic, so hopefully my fears about the DFT getting hold of this statutory CoP are unfounded and just me being cycnical.

I expect the answer will be "yes, in due course" because MPs are only coming back/setting up staff this week after the interruption of Summer Recess.

I will ask some questions and show the MHCLG a few updated bits of info next week and find out when this new Government is going to make a move on the final steps.

Thorndorise

So, I didn't feel that DCB Legal had adequately answered my question about VAT on the debt recovery costs being part of a parking charge...

I also asked them to stop faffing, if they were confident they would win,  they should file a claim immediately as I was confident they didn't. 

This was their response...

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office dated 02/09/2024. We now respond as follows.

We apologise for the error in our previous email and can confirm the parking charge of £100.00 was issued as per the contractual terms outlined on the signage displayed on site (please find re-attached for ease). A further charge of £70.00 was then added as a result of your non-payment. As per your request, please find below a breakdown of the outstanding balance:

£100.00 parking charge as per the contractual terms and conditions outlined on the signage.

£70.00 debt recovery costs as per the contractual costs outlined on the signage, as our Client has had to go to the expense of instructing DCB Legal to recover the debt.

 

Regarding your VAT query, we reiterate that there is no requirement for a VAT invoice to be issued to yourself. The HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration manual’ (VATSC06140), which was last updated on 02 September 2020, confirmed that parking charge notice's (PCN's) fall out of the scope of VAT.

As per your own admission, we note that the PCN of £100.00 has been received by the Registered Keeper. This afforded the opportunity to; appeal the parking charge, transfer liability to the driver (if it was not the Registered Keeper) or make payment. Neither a successful appeal, nor an adequate nomination were received, yet payment remains outstanding.

We further note your belief that the PCN has been incorrectly issued. However there has been no clarity or reasoning behind this statement. Therefore we now refer back to our previous email of 02/09/2024 and confirm that our position has been previously outlined to yourself and remains unchanged.

Please note, we will no longer be entering into communication regarding the same points which have previously been discussed.

You now have 27 days from the date of this email to pay the outstanding balance of £170.00. Failure to do so will result in a claim being issued against you without further notice and further fees and costs being incurred.

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 (X) 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 434 0424 to make payment over the telephone. 

Kind Regards, 

I've responded to say bring it on

KeithP

I like this bit of their response...
You now have 27 days from the date of this email to pay the outstanding balance of £170.00. Failure to do so will result in a claim being issued against you without further notice and further fees and costs being incurred.

Does the second sentence there mean that a claim may be issued without further notice, and without further fees and costs being incurred?

Remember Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015...

69 Contract terms that may have different meanings

(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.

 

Thorndorise

KeithP said:

I like this bit of their response...
You now have 27 days from the date of this email to pay the outstanding balance of £170.00. Failure to do so will result in a claim being issued against you without further notice and further fees and costs being incurred.

Does the second sentence there mean that a claim may be issued without further notice, and without further fees and costs being incurred?

Remember Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015...

69 Contract terms that may have different meanings

(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.

 

Really good point, I think I asked this question a few posts up, as the wording seems to differ too other letters I've seen. 

I did mention in my last response that they surely can only add costs if they win, and it being awarded,  rather than stating it will!

Prefer your version

LDast

Dear DCB Legal,

I write to address the glaring contradictions in your recent response and your apparent disregard for honesty and transparency.

You have stated that parking charge notices fall outside the scope of VAT according to HMRC’s VATSC06140, and therefore, no VAT invoice is required. However, you go on to claim that the additional £70 is for "debt recovery fees" incurred by your client as a result of my alleged non-payment.

This assertion is inconsistent and misleading. Debt recovery fees, unlike parking charges, are not VAT-exempt. You have explicitly admitted that the £70 is for debt recovery, which is a separate service from the PCN. As such, these charges are subject to VAT. Yet, you have chosen to obscure this fact by refusing to provide a breakdown of the amount or clarify whether VAT has been included. This evasiveness strongly suggests that you or your client is knowingly attempting to recover an inflated sum without properly accounting for VAT.

Furthermore, your reliance on the BPA Code of Practice to justify the £70 fee does not negate the fact that debt recovery services are not VAT exempt. Your failure to disclose whether VAT is included in this fee, combined with your attempt to characterise the £70 as part of a debt recovery process, exposes a deliberate effort to mislead.

If this matter proceeds to court, I will bring to the court's attention your blatant contradictions, your mendacious response, and your refusal to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol. This lack of honesty and transparency will be noted as an attempt to confuse and overcharge. The court is unlikely to look favourably upon such conduct, especially when coupled with your disregard for the rules governing pre-litigation disclosure.

I strongly suggest you reconsider your position and provide the clarity and full documentation required by the PAP, including a proper breakdown of the £70 fee with reference to VAT. If you fail to do so, I will have no hesitation in using your own admissions against you in any subsequent proceedings.

Yours faithfully,

          

Le_Kirk

LDast said:

Dear DCB Legal,

I strongly suggest you reconsider your position and provide the clarity and full documentation required by the PAP, including a proper breakdown of the £70 fee with reference to VAT. If you fail to do so, I will have no hesitation in using your own admissions against you in any subsequent proceedings.

 ........... and I will be reporting my concerns to HMRC VAT team.  

Thorndorise

@LDLast @Le_Kirk

Done and done

Thorndorise

Blimey, that was the answer worth waiting for @Coupon-mad @Nellymoser....

It would appear that Alex Norris doesn't know or is very good with cut and paste,  pointless answers!!!

Coupon-mad

I'm not overly concerned about the copy & paste.  The Code will progress now that the Summer Recess has ended and Government business is starting properly.

But: Who in the industry has successfully got at Jayne Kirkham?!

That is one of the most tone deaf questions about ANPR that I've read in ages. If anything, the question should be 

"when will the Government ban CCTV and ANPR from private firms' use for parking enforcement, to mirror the (right & proper) ban that applies to local authorities?"

Protest

Given the insights provided above by Norris the Parrot, identical in substance to replies by others to my MP over the past 2-3 years, how does a citizen bring pressure to bear on ministers and civil servants to be held to account for 5+ years of foot-dragging incompetence?  Judicial review.....?

BPA recognised at Parkex23 that the DLUHC people they were dealing with were too junior and inexperienced to handle the Code competently. The Code is not some benign statement of good practice but is part of a determined effort to remove perverse incentives and drive several of the less-ethical players out of the private parking market. Don't expect that intention and outcome to be acceptable to the industry!! When the next iteration of the Code appears it should be attended by a Ministry-employed cohort of senior barristers.