Secure Parking Solutions / DCB Legal Claim x 2

Hamish_123

Hi all,

No update in terms of any further letters received, but just wondered what your take was on the pictures below. I took a trip to the site yesterday. I also intend to keep a screenshot of Google Street View (if needed later) as this is dated March ‘23 and shows the same issues I identify in the pictures taken yesterday. This was the site that the “contravention” occurred. Of course, my defence is that the signage is massively ineffective and placed in areas that it is not reasonable to assume people will see and/or read.The only sign visible that could be argued is in a promement position is attached to an adjoining building and is some 12 feet in the air making it almost impossible to read! As well as further parking signs being spray painted over so the terms are no longer readable. Relating to the second of my PCN’s received, this was on the car park opposite which is “managed” by the same firm. As you can see I use the term “managed” loosely as the upkeep of the car park and legibility of the signs are horrendous. 

PCN #1 location;

PCN location #2


Would be interested to read your thoughts on this as people who deal with issues like this a lot. 

fisherjim

Yes that's typical of the rubbish signage that the PPC will claim is audited by the BPA in their evidence. 

But it obviously isn't, in reality the PPC gets a visit by the BPA compliance team allegedly annually and they pass a couple of generic office copies.

These Muppets run sites like this on a shoestring to make maximum profits, hidden, defective, damaged signage gets no attention, that would cost money, and in reality traps more victims that have little clue how to actually evidence an appeal.

This is why this site exists.

Mikeh2001

Awful signage!

If the PPC does decide to continue to pursue a court claim the following paragraphs (from the template defence) are already written for you.  When the time comes you will be ready to use the defence template (on page 1) and defend the claim on this basis.

Absolute keep all photos / evidence - they will be needed months / years later in the process.  if it gets that far.

Also dont forget - if you move in the next 6 years you must inform DCB Legal.  The last thing you want if them serving a court claim to an old address (they do this regularly)

-------------------------

CRA breaches

20. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a party raises it or not. Further, claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3):

 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

21. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'.  In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

22.  The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith). 

Hamish_123

Mikeh2001 said:

Awful signage!

If the PPC does decide to continue to pursue a court claim the following paragraphs (from the template defence) are already written for you.  When the time comes you will be ready to use the defence template (on page 1) and defend the claim on this basis.

Absolute keep all photos / evidence - they will be needed months / years later in the process.  if it gets that far.

Also dont forget - if you move in the next 6 years you must inform DCB Legal.  The last thing you want if them serving a court claim to an old address (they do this regularly)

-------------------------

CRA breaches

20. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a party raises it or not. Further, claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3):

 

21. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'.  In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

22.  The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith). 

The PCN in question is from 2022. I've had letters all the way up to solicitor involvement (ZZPS then QDR solicitors) without a NoC coming through, now it has reverted back to debt collector stage through DCBLtd. I wonder if the reason they don't progress to NoC is because they are aware of how poor their signage is and just rely on people being scared into paying via the debt collector route...

This just makes me more determined not to pay and to fight these bully boys who think they can just send letters demanding money from people. 

Mikeh2001

Exactly! Scare people with debt collectors and then the court system. 

Coupon-mad

The PCN in question is from 2022. I've had letters all the way up to solicitor involvement (ZZPS then QDR solicitors) without a NoC coming through, now it has reverted back to debt collector stage through DCBLtd. I wonder if the reason they don't progress to NoC is because they are aware of how poor their signage is and just rely on people being scared into paying via the debt collector route...

It's not site specific or to do with any awareness of bad signs; it's merely that the ZZPS strategy has been exhausted and (from the get-go) ZZPS did not ever have any intention or ability to litigate.  Even the QDR letter was sent by ZZPS, who are not solicitors but the 2 firms are in each others pockets, like terrible twins.

You were never going to get a court claim from the ZZPS letter chain strategy!

It's different now the case is on the DCB conveyor belt, which DOES result in a court claim but that's what you want.  With that evidence you'd win in court.  But DCB Legal will discontinue the claim before you get that joy!

How ironic that the graffiti has changed one sign to read 'parking cons'...

Same name (almost) as the Alexis Conran TV show that featured myself and @bargepole exposing the POC 'con', and it is still available to watch!

  

Hamish_123

Hi all,

I received the reply from DCBL as posted earlier in this thread. I’ve now received this from the parking firm, does this require a response do you think? DCBL have already confirmed they only have my current and correct address on file. 

Thanks!

Fruitcake

They do not need the PCN number in order to erase and correct your data, but I suspect their data search process is set such that it cannot search by name. Either that or they are lying and being obtuse and obstinate.

There is no harm in responding with your PCN number, but you should definitely have a dig at them stating that their inability to search by name will be reported to the ICO because it has put unnecessary obstacles in your way, and leaves you with the risk that they will use an old address to issue a court claim.

Another complain to your MP and a complaint to the DLUHC, plus of course a complain to the ICO won't hurt either.

Hamish_123

Fruitcake said:

They do not need the PCN number in order to erase and correct your data, but I suspect their data search process is set such that it cannot search by name. Either that or they are lying and being obtuse and obstinate.

There is no harm in responding with your PCN number, but you should definitely have a dig at them stating that their inability to search by name will be reported to the ICO because it has put unnecessary obstacles in your way, and leaves you with the risk that they will use an old address to issue a court claim.

Another complain to your MP and a complaint to the DLUHC, plus of course a complain to the ICO won't hurt either.

Thanks!

Might sound a daft question, but I have two PCN’s with them. Best to respond with both numbers? 

Coupon-mad

Yes.