Letter of Claim from DCB Legal/VCSL

quayside_warrior

Hi all,

Firstly, thank you to all who have contributed to this forum over the years as the information has been really helpful and reassuring to me, especially in the ‘NEWBIES’ thread, and I wish I had found it sooner.

This post is regarding two PCNs that were issued to me as the Registered Keeper of my Vehicle by Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCSL) and subsequent correspondence from their legal representative, DCB Legal. This matter spans several months and is now at the point where I have been issued with a ‘Letter of Claim’, so please kindly bear with me as I try to include all relevant information and apologies in advance for the long post.

_____________________________________________________________________________

I moved into a rented flat in May 2024, managed by X1 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (trade name X1 Lettings) and set up a monthly payment on 24/05/2024 to an account provided by them for a space in X1 Brindley Car Park, Salford Quays. After my parking space had been confirmed, X1 informed me that they did not yet have the correct permit available for my space and assured me that they had sent an email that would provide an exemption to allow my Vehicle to park in my space until I was provided with the correct permit.

On the morning of 28/05/2024, before I had been given the correct permit by X1, I discovered that two Privacy Notice documents (not PCNs) had been placed on my Vehicle’s windscreen, dated 26/05/2024 and 27/05/2024. I emailed X1 about this on the same morning at 09:04 and attach below an Imgur link to the response I received at 09:08. For all links please replace the hxxps with https as I cannot post links.

hxxps://imgur.com/a/0ZfFMYM

I then received the following via email from X1 on 28/05/2024 at 12:22:

hxxps://imgur.com/a/MyUyEEz

NB that in the above email, the ‘Subject’ references ‘Brindley Parking’; however, the email body references ‘Spinner Bay’, a different car park. As it turned out, X1 issued me with the wrong permit for the Brindley Car Park space. Though I questioned it, they continually assured me that this would not matter and to date I have still not received the correct permit from X1.

I then received via post two NTKs from VCSL. Unfortunately, I do not have the original letters to hand. Since I had been assured by X1 that they would rectify the situation and they had told me to ‘disregard these tickets’, I did not send a response and later VCSL sent further letters including a ‘Final Reminder’ PCN for each of the two alleged parking Contraventions. Please find the two PCNs via the Imgur link below.

hxxps://imgur.com/a/L4Ga5kN

Regarding the above PCNs, it seems to me that VCSL do not allege keeper liability under POFA 2012 particularly since they state, ‘The driver of the above vehicle is liable for the Parking Charge’ and ‘As the Registered Keeper, you are now invited to pay the unpaid Parking Charge’. Please could someone with more knowledge in this matter kindly confirm whether keeper liability has been alleged in these PCNs?

After receiving the ‘Final Reminder’ PCNs, I attempted to contact X1 again via email but received no response. (I was later told that the recipient, who also organised my parking space, had actually been sacked, though I was not told the reason for this.)

In August, I received ‘Notice of Intended Legal Action’ letters for each of the two alleged Contraventions from DCB Legal. The letters state that they are now charging £170 for both alleged Contraventions; looking at previous posts here relating to DCB Legal, I assume these questionable additional £70 charges are what they consider debt recovery/damages. Please see the below Imgur link for an image of each letter.

hxxps://imgur.com/a/yAqMeZ5

I also note that during August, I actually received two new Privacy Notice documents on my Vehicle’s windscreen, dated 20/08/2024 and 23/08/2024. I assumed this was due to the fact that I had still not been given the correct permit. Luckily however, no NTK has yet been sent following these two new Privacy Notices.

After I received the above ‘Notice of Intended Legal Action’ letters, I went in person to X1’s office. At my insistence, scans of these letters were taken and I was informed that they would be sent to upper management for them to review and rectify the matter. However, to date I have had no further update from X1.

Several days later, I received a more formal ‘Letter of Claim’ from DCB Legal dated 14/08/2024 claiming £340.00 for the PCNs and debt recovery costs. Worryingly, and I think contrary to what was stated on the PCNs issued by VCSL, they now state ‘You are liable as the Keeper or Driver’. Please find below an Imgur link to an image of this Letter.

hxxps://imgur.com/a/Og3nmR3

The above Letter also included a reply form, which I chose to fill out to explain the situation to DCB Legal from my perspective, essentially stating the same information as on here. I mentioned that I dispute their charges against me as I pay X1 for the privilege of having my Vehicle parked in the agreed space and X1 were responsible for the absence of the permit at the time of both alleged Contraventions. I also stated that X1 had asked me not to reply to the initial tickets. Though I did not consider it important at the time and am not able to review the contents of my submission, I am fairly certain that I did not reveal the identity of the Driver. On 12/09/2024, I received the response shown in the below Imgur link from DCB Legal via email.

hxxps/imgur.com/a/oe1txd7

Remarkably, as can be seen in their email response, DCB Legal state that X1 ‘does not operate the car park…and does not have the authority to cancel Parking Charge Notices’, despite my payments being made to X1 for the parking space, and despite X1 alleging on numerous occasions that they are able to have PCNs cancelled.

_____________________________________________________________________________

I am aware now that I should not have ignored the charges and regret that I did not seek legal advice or advice on this forum sooner, but I assumed and hoped for a long time that X1 would eventually have them rescinded. As I am now at the point where a Letter of Claim has been issued to me and I am clearly past the deadline for further appeal, I am currently unsure on the way forward. I will visit X1’s office again in person next week to further attempt to persuade them to resolve this matter, though based on past experiences and the most recent email from DCB Legal I am not hopeful.

In any case, I feel that it may now be time to prepare my Defence for an inevitable Claim against me, using the (excellent) template in the ‘NEWBIES’ section. I wonder though, have either VCSL or DCB Legal alleged keeper liability in my case? It looks like it could be an easy win if not, though I have received conflicting statements from the two companies.

I have seen it mentioned here that DCB Legal ‘always’ discontinue before a hearing which is reassuring. However, do I actually have a strong Defence against them? Or will I have to make my own Claim against X1 for misinforming/misleading me?

Any suggestions about how to proceed from this point would be very much appreciated. Many thanks.

The Quayside_Warrior

Coupon-mad

Either send the template response to the LBC as shown in the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread or ignore the LBC.

Either is OK but on balance, a Judge will prefer to see that you replied.

You'll get a court claim either way. Easy to defend.

quayside_warrior

Coupon-mad said:

Either send the template response to the LBC as shown in the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread or ignore the LBC.

Either is OK but on balance, a Judge will prefer to see that you replied.

You'll get a court claim either way. Easy to defend.

Thank you for your timely response. I will send the LBC the template you are referring to with my details filled in and also some additions pertinent to my situation.

Do you believe keeper liability has been alleged under POFA 2012? As this would be helpful to know for my defence.

Coupon-mad

No. It's 'non-POFA' due to this hybrid crap:

I discovered that two Privacy Notice documents (not PCNs) had been placed on my Vehicle’s windscreen, dated 26/05/2024 and 27/05/2024.

You need to read this VCS claim thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75879770#Comment_75879770

...where the poster @adambuzz14
got a sceptical Judge (who first of all 'shut him down') to finally understand the fact the red card IS (and can only be) a Notice to driver.

Thus, the NTK arrived too soon and they have neither followed para 8 nor para 9 of Schedule 4. pre-requisites of keeper liability - they have to follow one route or the other if trying to hold a keeper liable.

You can quote adambuzz14's claim number & date/place of hearing (not that it is a precedent but it's a case of similar facts). Transcript:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/peh3uwf1wnrwq5g/APPROVED -E1QZ7X7C-VCS-BURZYNSKI.pdf?dl=0

Case No: E1QZ7X7C

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT DERBY

Bazarius

I don’t think VCS uses the red card anymore .  Because it only offered 5 days to appeal, It  identified the PCN reference number etc  . It had all the hallmarks of being a “notice to driver”

But the blue ones do not .  It’s just a privacy notice BUT it is a trap - the driver could call them up and admit all sorts , they could use it against you  at court . 

Was it blue or red ?   If blue then the above persuasive caselaw does  not apply to this case . 

quayside_warrior

Coupon-mad said:

No. It's 'non-POFA' due to this hybrid crap:

I discovered that two Privacy Notice documents (not PCNs) had been placed on my Vehicle’s windscreen, dated 26/05/2024 and 27/05/2024.

...where the poster @adambuzz14
got a sceptical Judge (who first of all 'shut him down') to finally understand the fact the red card IS (and can only be) a Notice to driver.

Thus, the NTK arrived too soon and they have neither followed para 8 nor para 9 of Schedule 4. pre-requisites of keeper liability - they have to follow one route or the other if trying to hold a keeper liable.

Case No: E1QZ7X7C

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT DERBY

Thank you again, I will give this case a thorough read through 

quayside_warrior

Bazarius said:

I don’t think VCS uses the red card anymore .  Because it only offered 5 days to appeal, It  identified the PCN reference number etc  . It had all the hallmarks of being a “notice to driver”

But the blue ones do not .  It’s just a privacy notice BUT it is a trap - the driver could call them up and admit all sorts , they could use it against you  at court . 

Was it blue or red ?   If blue then the above persuasive caselaw does  not apply to this case . 

It was definitely blue, I then received a letter through the post which had a method of paying - so I assume that was the official PCN.

So does POFA apply with this blue PCN? As I would like to reply to the latest email quoted but unsure as to which template to send in the NEWBIES section. 

Thanks again  

Coupon-mad

POFA won't apply anyway because the NTK (almost certainly) won't have been POFA worded. Please don't show it to us! Just read my NTK pictures thread. Pics are there.

Not that any of the above is relevant if you were driving anyway. Drop the POFA argument idea if you were.