DCB Legal Claim

greenhowgiggle

@LDast, I don't think it's worth funding the scammers, but I suspect nowhere near enough people contest these cases to make their business model unviable. I'll continue to do so on principal, but I do wonder what's the point....

Anyway, I've had time to fully digest the documents sent by DBC Legal. They have provided the original PCN, a reminder letter, a photo of the car stopped on a double yellow line and the following photographs



The PCN states:
"The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land, the car park is managed by BaySentry Solutions and parking tariffs apply or a Parking Charge will be incurred, along with other terms and conditions of the carpark by which those who park in the car park agree to be bound"

And later on states:
"Stopped in a no stopping zone, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to BaySentry Solutions as the creditor"

My initial observations are:

1. The signage is neither clearly displayed, or displayed at the entrance to the private land, even DBC's own evidence illustrates this.
2. It's not a carpark anyway, to all intents and purposes it is a normal road, with carparks off to the side. One would naturally assume that the parking signs apply to those carparks, and not to the road.
3. Stopping a car and parking a car are two different things
4. None of the evidence provided by DBC shows the signage that states that simply stopping incurs a charge

In my (albeit uneducated) opinion, none of the conditions of the draft order submitted with the defence have been met.

So what happens now? Can the court decide at this point that the conditions of the draft order have not been met, and throw the case out? Or will a hearing date now be set, and I'll have to start preparing my own evidence?

Coupon-mad

That's up to the court.

KeithP

The first two pictures in you latest post are dated seventeen days apart.
One is dated 2nd June 2023 and the other is dated 19th June 2023.

They also appear to be from two different sites.
The 2nd June pic is annotated 1 Riverside Way, and the 19th June pic says 5 Whitehall Road.

greenhowgiggle

@Coupon-mad understood, but could the court potentially decide without having to go to a hearing?

greenhowgiggle

@KeithP, Riverside Way is the private land under BaySentry's control - it's a side road adjoining Whitehall Road. The
images DCB have submitted as evidence are of the same site, but I suppose the address may depend on where the photograph was taken. The signs in the photos are all in the area circled yellow:



Can you elaborate on the significance of the image dates? Interestingly, the PCN is dated 24/11/2023, and  understand through speaking to the manager of the Premier Inn, that the signs have now been removed (but I haven't confirmed this yet). Google images is showing that the signs were present in June 2024, so why would DCB have not used this as evidence, as it would prove that the signs were present at the relevant time?

LDast

Why do you keep referring to DCB? The claimant is BaySentry Solutions Ltd.

So far, we have not seen any sign that could form a contract with the driver. What signs are there that clearly state the terms and conditions of parking and have the name BaySentry Ltd on them? None that have been evidenced.

Until the case management judge reviews the case, you aren't going to hear anything. I still contend that this will either be struck out or the claimant ordered to provide full PoC according to the draft order, which will lead to a strike out or it will simply be discontinued.

Just be patient.

greenhowgiggle

LDast said:

Why do you keep referring to DCB? The claimant is BaySentry Solutions Ltd.

Because the letter was sent by DCB, and says "the evidence we have on file"

Unfortunately, patience has not been rewarded in this case, so my jobs this week will be to complete the N180 questionnaire and travel back to Leeds to take photos of the site for evidence 

greenhowgiggle

And in unrelated news, we have received another letter from DCBL bailiffs demanding a £170 parking charge for parking in Sheffield this September, despite having entered my card details into a website for the parking company and watching the site display a countdown timer until the end of the parking session. I am getting extremely fed up with this company!

Gr1pr

DCBL being the debt collectors, not DCB Legal the legal team 

Ignore DCBL, don't ignore DCB Legal 

No bailiffs are instructed in any of these cases 

greenhowgiggle

Gr1pr said:

DCBL being the debt collectors, not DCB Legal the legal team 

Ignore DCBL, don't ignore DCB Legal 

No bailiffs are instructed in any of these cases 

Thanks @Gr1pr I'm ignoring DCBL for now - interesting that they have the word Bailiffs in their company name when they're not bailiffs...