DBC legal without prejudice settlement

Ap2024

Hi all, I would really appreciate any help or advice on this.

In 2020 I parked at a euro car park in my local town center.

As I went to pay the 0.50p, the machine was covered in a bin bag and said phone only, and was hand written. It was very strange... A bin bag!

As there was a rise is scams during COVID and this looked suspicious, I went to a local shop to ask the legitimacy they said they didn't know. I got in my car and left, I was not there longer than 15 mins max but probably much less, due to the time it happened I can't remember exactly.

Recently I received a letter from civil national business center below are the particulars. They wanted 288.72

Defendant

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the

Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued

to vehicle B***** at Town Square S*****.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 20/04/2020

3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:NO Valid Pay And Display/permit Was Purchased

4. In the alternative the defendant is

pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012,

Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £155 being the total of the PCN(s) and

damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum

pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act

1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of

£.03 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

I responded back with the below

Dear Sir/Madam,

**Subject: Formal Defense to Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Claim**

I am submitting my formal defense in response to the claim regarding an alleged breach of parking terms at Town *****, on **20/04/2020**. The total claim amount of **£288.73** is excessive and disproportionate given the circumstances. Below, I have outlined the reasons why this claim should be dismissed or significantly reduced to reflect a fair resolution.

### 1. **Out-of-Service Payment Machine and Unclear Payment Options**

   - Upon arriving at the car park, I attempted to pay using coins, but the machine was visibly out of service, wrapped in a bin bag, with a handwritten “Out of Order” sign instructing drivers to call a phone number for payment. This unofficial notice lacked any identifiable markings to confirm it was legitimate or authorized by the car park operator. Given the prevalence of scams during the COVID-19 period, I was understandably concerned about calling an unknown number and sharing sensitive payment information without clear verification. As a result, I had no viable means to pay.

### 2. **Frustration of Contract**

   - This situation qualifies as a “frustration of contract,” where I was unable to fulfill the terms due to circumstances beyond my control—the lack of a working machine or any legitimate, clear alternative payment method. The failure of the machine and inadequate instructions rendered it impossible to comply with any payment requirements, voiding any perceived contract.

### 3. **Unreasonable and Disproportionate Charge**

   - The claimed amount of **£288.73** is disproportionate given the circumstances, especially since my stay was brief, lasting no more than 10 minutes. This amount does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of any loss incurred, and given the lack of loss or disruption to others, this high fee appears punitive rather than fair or reasonable.

### 4. **Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Lack of “Prominent” Signage**

   - Under the **Consumer Rights Act 2015**, terms must be clear, transparent, and prominent. The handwritten “Out of Order” note did not meet these requirements, as it was ambiguous and lacked official identification. The unclear and unofficial nature of the instructions made it impossible to comply with contractual terms in a reasonable and secure manner.

### 5. **Failure to Mitigate Loss**

   - The operator has a responsibility to ensure functional payment options or to provide clear, secure alternatives if a machine is out of order. No such alternative was provided. This lack of mitigation contributed directly to the circumstances of this case and demonstrates a failure by the operator to manage potential losses.

### 6. **Willingness to Settle with a Fair Resolution**

   - I am open to a fair and reasonable settlement of this matter. I am willing to pay the original parking fee, as I believe this would reflect a fair outcome given my brief time in the car park and the broken machine. I do not, however, believe I should be held financially responsible for issues resulting from the operator’s failure to provide functional payment options. I respectfully request that the charges be adjusted to reflect a fair outcome.

### 7. **Data Privacy Concerns During COVID-19**

   - The handwritten note raised data privacy concerns by suggesting I call an unverified phone number for payment. During COVID-19, when scams were increasingly prevalent, it was a reasonable precaution to avoid using an insecure, unofficially presented option to provide payment information.

### 8. **Conclusion**

   - Based on these points, including the operator’s failure to provide adequate payment options, lack of clear signage, and the disproportionate nature of the claim amount, I respectfully request that this claim be dismissed or, alternatively, that the charge be reduced to reflect the original parking fee or another reasonable amount. I am committed to a fair resolution in good faith.

Thank you for considering these matters. I trust that a reasonable outcome can be achieved.

Yours faithfully,

Then I received a call from DBC legal, the lady asked if I would accept a offer I said I wouldn't agree to anything over the phone and would like confirmation by email. They said I would need to accept first. I ignored this and they sent me the below, not sure if it was by mistake.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

We write to you in relation to the above matter.

To assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our Client may be prepared to settle this case. I can confirm our Client would be agreeable to £235 in full and final settlement of this Claim. The current outstanding balance is £288.72.

Should you be agreeable to this offer, please confirm the same within 7 days. Payment can be made via our website www.dcblegal.co.uk, by calling our office on 0203 838 7038 or via bank transfer:　

DCB Legal Ltd Client Account　　

Sort Code: 20-24-09　　

Account no: 60964441　　

When making payment please ensure you include the following reference number, ********, to enable us to allocate it to the correct case.

Upon receipt of the settlement sum of £235 we will update the Court that the matter has been settled. If you are not agreeable, we will continue to follow the Court process as normal.　

Kind Regards,

I would really appreciate any advice on how to respond and what steps I should take next, please help. I do not finish to pay for an inflated payment and would rather go to court if I had to. Money is tight as I'm sure with many people.

Many thanks

la531983

Shouldnt have identified yourself as the driver.

Ap2024

Okay thanks, but is there anything else you could advise which will help my case?

Umkomaas

Did you send your 'Defence' via the CNBC, or did you just send the above directly (and only) to DCB Legal?

la531983

At the moment, nothing. Ignore everything until (or indeed if) they issue a court claim. Dont be wasting any more time on the phone.

Ap2024

Thanks for responding Umkomaas, the defense was sent through the website, I have not responded to DBC legal yet.

Ap2024

In terms of email back to DBC

Would this be a fair response and anything I should add?

Without Prejudice Save as to Costs**

**Re: Claim Number ***** – Proposed Settlement Offer**

Dear Ms. *****,

I write in response to your correspondence dated [Insert Date], regarding the above-referenced matter.

Having reviewed the claim, I must respectfully assert that the amounts sought, including the proposed settlement of £235, are disproportionate and lack a clear basis. Furthermore, no breakdown of the claimed costs has been provided, which raises questions about the reasonableness and transparency of the sums being pursued.

The legal principles established in *ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67* emphasize that penalties must be proportionate and justified. The amounts demanded here appear to exceed what could reasonably reflect any legitimate interest your client may have in enforcing the alleged parking breach.

Moreover, there are mitigating factors that I believe should be considered, including photographic evidence of the machine being wrapped in a bin bag. These circumstances highlight that any alleged breach was not deliberate or malicious.

To resolve this matter amicably and without the need for further escalation, I propose a “drop hands” settlement. Under this arrangement, both parties agree to discontinue the matter entirely and bear their own costs. This proposal would avoid unnecessary use of Court time and resources, aligning with the overriding objective to resolve disputes efficiently and proportionately.

This offer is made as a gesture of goodwill and to bring this matter to a swift conclusion. Should your client decline this reasonable proposal, I reserve the right to challenge the proportionality, validity, and enforceability of the claim in Court, and to seek a full disclosure of costs.

This letter is written without prejudice to my position and is not an admission of liability. I request confirmation of your client’s acceptance of this proposal within 7 days.

Yours sincerely,

Gr1pr

Login to MCOL and copy and paste your claim history below 

Study the 12 steps in the defence template thread by coupon mad, in the first couple of posts 

If the CNBC have received your defence and logged it, you are about halfway through the 12 steps, one of which is to ignore the early communications by DCB Legal 

Leave any idea of an early settlement to the mediation stage 

Name the claimant parking company involved 

Coupon-mad

Ap2024 said:

In terms of email back to DBC

Would this be a fair response and anything I should add?

Without Prejudice Save as to Costs**

**Re: Claim Number ***** – Proposed Settlement Offer**

Dear Ms. *****,

I write in response to your correspondence dated [Insert Date], regarding the above-referenced matter.

Having reviewed the claim, I must respectfully assert that the amounts sought, including the proposed settlement of £235, are disproportionate and lack a clear basis. Furthermore, no breakdown of the claimed costs has been provided, which raises questions about the reasonableness and transparency of the sums being pursued.

The legal principles established in *ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67* emphasize that penalties must be proportionate and justified. The amounts demanded here appear to exceed what could reasonably reflect any legitimate interest your client may have in enforcing the alleged parking breach.

Moreover, there are mitigating factors that I believe should be considered, including photographic evidence of the machine being wrapped in a bin bag. These circumstances highlight that any alleged breach was not deliberate or malicious.

To resolve this matter amicably and without the need for further escalation, I propose a “drop hands” settlement. Under this arrangement, both parties agree to discontinue the matter entirely and bear their own costs. This proposal would avoid unnecessary use of Court time and resources, aligning with the overriding objective to resolve disputes efficiently and proportionately.

This offer is made as a gesture of goodwill and to bring this matter to a swift conclusion. Should your client decline this reasonable proposal, I reserve the right to challenge the proportionality, validity, and enforceability of the claim in Court, and to seek a full disclosure of costs.

This letter is written without prejudice to my position and is not an admission of liability. I request confirmation of your client’s acceptance of this proposal within 7 days.

Yours sincerely,

Errr... why are you responding? Nobody responds to that early template letter. You need to get back on track. Please read the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread.