Uk Parking Control Limited/DCB Legal Letter of Claim

JingleTree

Over a year ago I received a parking charge notice for parking outside of the lines at the local Waitrose. For context this was at the end of a row of parking spaces and put the car just outside of the lines, onto an area marked for pedestrians. The charge amount was for £100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. I appealed using the guides within this forum, but this was rejected. 

Firstly given that the car did not encroach on another parking space, and did not impact anyone else at all, the fine wasn't justifiable in my mind. Their response to this is that 'the charge does not have to reflect any loss that might have been caused by the breach of the terms and conditions of parking on the basis that the amount claimed from any breach is commercially justifiable.'

Also on the pictures provided as evidence there is one which shows the parking notice in the car park which is timestamped seconds after the final picture of the car, but this image is taken at least 500 yards away from the car and it would be impossible to have taken the picture seconds afterwards. My argument is that if this image is doctored, what else could they have doctored on the images?

There was no notice issued on site, I only received the letter afterwards, so was unable to get any evidence of my own.

I have refused to confirm who the driver at the time was.

I have also written to the Waitrose in question, but they have told me there is nothing they can do.

A few weeks ago I received a Letter of claim, to which I responded to via email with the advice in this thread: **NEWBIES!! PRIVATE PARKING TICKET? OLD OR NEW? **READ THESE FAQS FIRST!** Thankyou! — MoneySavingExpert Forum 

Their response to this is as follows:

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office dated 17/05/2024.

We now respond to the same as follows.

Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”) states “The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. For the purpose of the Act; “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper. The DVLA confirmed that you were the Registered Keeper at the time the parking charge notice was issued and as such you are presumed to be the Keeper. Our Client therefore has the right to recover the parking charge from you as the Keeper of the vehicle under POFA.

The terms and conditions on the signs stated that parking was permitted for vehicles parked wholly within a marked bay. The vehicle was not parked within a marked bay as is demonstrated in the photographic evidence attached. The parking charge was issued correctly, as the parking was in violation of the terms and conditions.

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 paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action, so the amount due would not have increased.

You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment of £170.00. 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:

 What are the next steps now? Should I just await an invite to court? I've ignored many of the letters before this, but given the forum states that following a letter of claim, court action is likely, I'm beginning to feel more concerned.

My issue here is mostly around principle, if it came to it I can afford to pay the money, but am I at risk of having to pay a lot more? The car is *just* outside of the lines, some people I have shown the picture to, argue that the inside of the tyres are still just touching the lines therefore shouldn't be in breach, but it's not obvious from the photos and it is clear that some of the car at least is outside of the lines.

Also if this is a free car park - is that still covered under schedule 4?

LDast

Do not stress. A claim from the intellectually malnourished duo of DCB Legal and UKPC is almost the final stages of your dilemma. You can guarantee that once they file the claim (they will) you simply use the Defence Template to robustly defend it, go through the steps in the 12-point checklist in the Defence Template thread and you will see your username in lights in this thread when they discontinue:

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

When you get the N1SDT claim, show us it with your personal details, claim number, MCOL password, VRM and PCN number redacted. WE need to see the PoC and the amounts claimed.

Also, in the meantime, why not take pleasure in reporting DCB Legal to HMRC for their mendacious attempt to deflect attention to their defrauding HMG of revenue with this blatant lie:

"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."

It takes just a few minutes to report them using the online form and there is no need to even give your details:

https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/report-tax-fraud/before-you-start

Everyone who receives that response from DCB Legal is making this report, you should too. They are making £millions from this £70 fake fee and not paying VAT on it is definitely fraud.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for this:

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.

Copy the VAT concerns report discussed on umpteen results threads this year.

PLEASE do the complaint to HMRC.

You are complaining about a concern (worth multi millions) that the parking industry are dressing up a debt recovery fee added by DRAs as if it's 'part of the contractual PCN of our client' but it IS NOT.  It's a '£70 per PCN' debt recovery fee and it looks like consumers are being expected to cover the VAT element OR that no VAT is being paid (£millions) on these fees.  Either way, HMRC should investigate.

Takes under 10 mins and they anonymise it, so no repercussions on you.  We are hoping for pressure to lead to repercussions on the parking DRAs & legals.

JingleTree

Thanks! I have submitted a report via HMRC and will await details of the claim when they file.

patient_dream

DCBL are misleading you regarding VAT

We all know that the parking charge does not attract VAT
BUT parking charges have never been set at £170 and in your case the charge is £100 .

So what is the added fake £70 that DCBL pretend is DAMAGES or CONTRACTUAL CHARGE........ it is a disguise for DEBT COLLECTOR charges .. as approved by the scam BPA, the great Osner scam but what is DAMAGES and CONTRACTUAL charges that DCBL love to quote from the unregulated code of pracrice ... the BPA  CODE

NO...  the fake DCBL add-on IS a cover up where VAT is due.

Only HMRC can discover how many people paid the fake charge 

Report them

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

You have left your vehicle's registration mark and your MCOL password clearly visible in that image you have shown us.

JingleTree

Whoops! I can't work out how to delete the post. But the Issue date is 24th June 2024

KeithP

JingleTree said:

Whoops! I can't work out how to delete the post. But the Issue date is 24th June 2024

As a new user you won't be able to delete anything.
Suggest you hit the Report button below your post and ask MSE Forum Team to remove the image from that post.

With a Claim Issue Date of 24th June, you have until Monday 15th July to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 29th July 2024 to file a Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

KeithP

@JingleTree, as you are now a 'Forumite' rather than a 'Newbie' - changed a few minutes ago - you should be able to edit your posts now. Click on the three dots in a circle top right of your post and the edit option should now be available to you.

Coupon-mad

JingleTree said:

I've reported my original comment, so may go soon, so reposting with details removed. Issue Date is 24th June:

Use the Template Defence.

Deny not parking correctly, in your facts section and show us ONLY those paragraphs, please.

JingleTree

Here's my draft defence, any support or comments appreciated:

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

3. The defendant acknowledges that their car was parked at Capitol Leisure Park on 04/03/2023 for a short time for the driver to visit the supermarket. However the driver does recall the car not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space. No parking notice was issued at the time of parking, so there was no opportunity for the driver to obtain their own evidence.

4. The images shared of the car with the owner, do not show clear and obvious evidence of the car not parked correctly within the markings of the bay. There is also evidence a time stamp on these images have been doctored, which leaves the defendant to refute the legitimacy of these images.

5. If we are to trust in the validity of these images, what they do show is that the car is clearly not parked blocking or encroaching any other parking bays. There are no limitations to pedestrianised space or to any other roads within the car park.

6. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.