Excel parking DCB Legal court claim

Fruitcake

jono78 said:

Fruitcake said:

jono78 said:

Is this not true?

statutory conditions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), which is required to hold the registered keeper liable for any alleged parking charges. In particular, the Notice to Keeper was issued beyond the mandatory 14-day period following the date of the alleged parking event, as required by Paragraph 9(4) of POFA.

It doesn't matter. The PPC does not have to follow the PoFA if they don't want to. They can state that they (and knowing Excel, probably will) "make the reasonable assumption that the driver was the keeper" and therefore the PoFA is irrelevant.

This does not affect whether the NTK is or is not PoFA compliant, but they may (probably will) say the PoFA is irrelevant and (try to) hold the driver liable.

Private parking providers are not required to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), but if they want to hold the vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking charge (in cases where they can't identify the driver), they must comply with it.

• Keeper Liability: Under POFA 2012, Schedule 4 allows parking operators to pursue the vehicle's registered keeper for unpaid parking charges, but only if they follow specific requirements. These include timelines for sending notices, the content of the notice, and ensuring proper signage.

• Non-Compliance: If the parking provider does not comply with POFA, they can still pursue the driver directly, but they lose the legal right to pursue the keeper if the driver's identity is unknown.

I am confused. Do you have a question? All you have shown here agrees with what I posted. It affects nothing. The PPC doesn't have to comply with the PoFA if they don't want to. 

Going from your dates, the NTK is not PoFA compliant, but it won't stop Excel from claiming they believe the driver was the keeper, and will therefore proceed with a claim accordingly.
Non PoFA compliance will be a valid defence point especially if the driver was not the keeper, but not the only one. 

jono78

It affects nothing. The PPC doesn't have to comply with the PoFA if they don't want to.

Because it seems PoFA is not relevant until it is... IN the case its relevant if they want to pursue the keeper for liability.

is there any need to be so kurt on these forums?

claiming they believe the driver was the keeper, and will therefore proceed with a claim accordingly.

i guess the question is how can they provide proof that they are the same Or how can they pursue the driver without knowing who that is?

I'll look into advising the person to look at the letter of claim reponse here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585

is it worth sending a more detailed response?

Advice on other forums is to send a very 'snotty letter' at this stage

Coupon-mad

CAG is the worst forum for parking charge and defence 'advice' I've ever seen.  Years ago I posted there and gave up within days because they are ranty and clueless about the subject.  May be CAG is OK for other subjects but not for private parking.

There is literally no point sending a more detailed reply. Forget CAG. Stay here.

jono78

ah excellent. So just copy and paste the same reponse here? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585

Don't send me your usual blather about that.
I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:
1. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

What is PAP?

DO i need to put more specifics around this specific case?

Le_Kirk

jono78 said:

What is PAP?

PAP = Pre Action Protocol

LDast

jono78 said:

DO i need to put more specifics around this specific case?

Stop trying to overthink this. Just do as advised. No need to add or remove anything. Just sent the letter by email.

jono78

OKay thanks. Will send today

jono78

A response has come back from dcb legal

In order to identify the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, our client submitted a request for details to the DVLA. Your details were provided and thereafter notices were sent to you by our Client at your serviceable address. Those notices asked you to either make payment or, if you were not driving, nominate a driver by providing their name and full address. You did neither and as such you are now pursued on the basis that you were driving. On the balance of probabilities, if you were not the driver, you would have nominated. 

Please note the timeframe in which to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has expired. You were given the opportunity to lodge an appeal when the initial Notice was issued to you. Given that the case has been escalated to this firm for recovery action, the time to appeal to the Independent Appeal Service has now elapsed and payment of the PCN is now required. 

DPA information is located on the signage. Where the terms have not been complied with, your personal data may be collected, processed, shared and retained in order to enforce the parking contract and for legitimate interests with the following: The DVLA to pursue a PCN/ Third parties for appeals and enforcement. 

DCB Legal have been instructed to process your personal data for the purpose of issuing legal proceedings for the recovery of monies owed to our Client. Details of how DCB Legal manage your data can be located atwww.dcblegal.co.uk/gdpr-data-protection-policy.  

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

In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, where the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) becomes overdue and before Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be added for the debt recovery fees. BPA - 24.1b “Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue and before Court Proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum (which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added for the debt recovery fees. This sum must not exceed £70 unless prior approval from the BPA has been granted”. The correct recovery fees have been added and will not be removed.  

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.

1505grandad

"PPC? excel parking?"

Assuming the ppc is Excel why are DCB quoting BPA CoP?

About time the legals updated their template reply to state the VATSC06140 was updated 30th August 2024.

LDast

It'll never get to a hearing.

"You did neither and as such you are now pursued on the basis that you were driving. On the balance of probabilities, if you were not the driver, you would have nominated."

They'd receive a severe spanking if they tried to use that as evidence. And they call themselves a "legal" firm.