Advice following Letter of Claim response - DCB Legal

tigerman_84

Hi there.

Any advice here would be much appreciated please.

I have a Euro Car Parks parking charge dating back to 6th Feb 2020, whereby I was parked across two bays (about a foot over another bay, which I didn't realise as I was in a rush for a work meeting).

I had no qualms with the charge and phoned the number on the letter from Euro Car Parks (which I no longer have) to pay the £30 charge, only to be told that they couldn't find the details on their system hence there was nothing I could pay.  I recorded the date and time of the phone call, though obviously I didn't record the call as I didn't foresee any further problems.

Of course I then received a further later stating that the charge had increased to £60, at which point I wrote a letter of appeal to Euro Car Parks (approx. April 2020) asking them to check theur call recording logs etc for proof, only to have a response basically stating the reasons for the charge, and making no reference whatsoever to the fact that I had called to try and pay (which was the reason for my appeal), and then requesting for a payment of £100.

I then had an unsuccessful POPLA appeal. in August 2020.  Fast forward to 2024 after ignoring multiple letters over the years, I eventually received a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal.   I responded using the template provide in this forum (though I made no reference to my original issue of trying to pay the £30 fine in the first place); I have now received a response along with the photo evidence of my parking over two spaces.

Although this feels very unjust as I would have accepted the original fine of £30, do I have any chance of a favourable outcome here please, or should I just pay the amount of £170 they are asking for to stop this going any further?

Many thanks in advance.

DE_612183

very much so - DCBL will ( if you follow the correct steps ) discontinue - as they did with the 400+ people on this therad: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80602486#Comment_80602486

tigerman_84

Thanks very much for the quick response, DE_612183.

In terms of a witness statement/defense, would I best to base this around having tried to pay over the phone or something like the signage etc, do you think please?

Gr1pr

We shall cross those bridges at the appropriate times next year,  but your defence will be similar to all the other current ones on here, rebutting the POC, your later WS may have some of the story in it,  but wait and see 

tigerman_84

Thanks Gr1pr - much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

tigerman_84 said:

Hi there.

Any advice here would be much appreciated please.

I have a Euro Car Parks parking charge dating back to 6th Feb 2020, whereby I was parked across two bays (about a foot over another bay, which I didn't realise as I was in a rush for a work meeting).

I had no qualms with the charge and phoned the number on the letter from Euro Car Parks (which I no longer have) to pay the £30 charge, only to be told that they couldn't find the details on their system hence there was nothing I could pay.  I recorded the date and time of the phone call, though obviously I didn't record the call as I didn't foresee any further problems.

Of course I then received a further later stating that the charge had increased to £60, at which point I wrote a letter of appeal to Euro Car Parks (approx. April 2020) asking them to check theur call recording logs etc for proof, only to have a response basically stating the reasons for the charge, and making no reference whatsoever to the fact that I had called to try and pay (which was the reason for my appeal), and then requesting for a payment of £100.

I then had an unsuccessful POPLA appeal. in August 2020.  Fast forward to 2024 after ignoring multiple letters over the years, I eventually received a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal.   I responded using the template provide in this forum (though I made no reference to my original issue of trying to pay the £30 fine in the first place); I have now received a response along with the photo evidence of my parking over two spaces.

Although this feels very unjust as I would have accepted the original fine of £30, do I have any chance of a favourable outcome here please, or should I just pay the amount of £170 they are asking for to stop this going any further?

Why would you want to stop the case going to the very, very easy court defence stage where DCB give up? Rhetorical question but I don't get why anyone wants to pay £170 to "make it go away" when you'll never pay a penny by letting it progress to where you win...

DE_612183

Coupon-mad said:

tigerman_84 said:

Hi there.

Any advice here would be much appreciated please.

I have a Euro Car Parks parking charge dating back to 6th Feb 2020, whereby I was parked across two bays (about a foot over another bay, which I didn't realise as I was in a rush for a work meeting).

I had no qualms with the charge and phoned the number on the letter from Euro Car Parks (which I no longer have) to pay the £30 charge, only to be told that they couldn't find the details on their system hence there was nothing I could pay.  I recorded the date and time of the phone call, though obviously I didn't record the call as I didn't foresee any further problems.

Of course I then received a further later stating that the charge had increased to £60, at which point I wrote a letter of appeal to Euro Car Parks (approx. April 2020) asking them to check theur call recording logs etc for proof, only to have a response basically stating the reasons for the charge, and making no reference whatsoever to the fact that I had called to try and pay (which was the reason for my appeal), and then requesting for a payment of £100.

I then had an unsuccessful POPLA appeal. in August 2020.  Fast forward to 2024 after ignoring multiple letters over the years, I eventually received a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal.   I responded using the template provide in this forum (though I made no reference to my original issue of trying to pay the £30 fine in the first place); I have now received a response along with the photo evidence of my parking over two spaces.

Although this feels very unjust as I would have accepted the original fine of £30, do I have any chance of a favourable outcome here please, or should I just pay the amount of £170 they are asking for to stop this going any further?

Why would you want to stop the case going to the very, very easy court defence stage where DCB give up? Rhetorical question but I don't get why anyone wants to pay £170 to "make it go away" when you'll never pay a penny by letting it progress to where you win...

Because some people believe the lies and scaremongering of these scavengers and their conspirators...

tigerman_84

I genuinely would have paid the fee by now if it wasn't for the advice on this forum. I had doubts as I thought the majority of cases mentioned here based their 'defense' around bad signage etc, whereas there's clear photos of my car across two spaces.  Thanks for taking a weight off my shoulders and giving me the confidence to press on. I'll update on the progress!

Coupon-mad

Here you go, it is honestly true that emailing a template defence works and is twenty times easier than appealing:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

That's a new standard para 3 especially for DCB Legal cases. They then discontinue before hearings because they are playing a numbers game. Easy, innit?

tigerman_84

Apologies for the delayed response - I didn't realise I'd received a further reply on here.  Thanks Coupon-mad for providing the link to the template.

I filed the MCOL on 16/01 and I understand that I now have until tomorrow to submit my defence (my own fault for leaving it very late).

I have some circumstances which I would like to ask about, please, as I'm not sure the standard para 3 will cut the mustard, so just looking to understand how best to frame my defence:

1. The photo from the car park clearly shows me parked well over two spaces. It looks silly, but in my head I didn't think the space next to me was actually as space given the shape of it (I should have looked properly, so it was my own fault) - from reading other threads, it feels like this is one that DCB would not choose to discontinue.

2. I never disputed the parking charge; to the contrary I tried to pay it as soon as I received the letter, however when I called to pay it, I was told by the operator that the details of the PCN could not be found on their system.  I asked clearly if this means there's no charge outstanding, to which they replied 'Yes' - naively I didn't ask for anything in writing and didn't record anything as I wasn't expecting anything further to come of it. 
 -As I then received a further letter later down the line stating that the charge had now increased to £60, I called to protest that I had tried to pay earlier and they didn't care, therefore I submitted a POPLA appeal (I wasn't aware of this forum at the time or what the correct course of action should be).

3. The POPLA appeal was rejected.  I can't remember what information I gave (I can no longer login; I expect the case is deleted or archived as it was from 2020), other than that I wasn't disputing the charge, but rather the fact that I had tried to pay and the charge had increased etc, so I'm not sure if the 'not admitting to being the driver' defence would stand up (I don't think I explicitly admitted to being the drive though). 

4.  The POPLA appeal rejection response from Euro Car Parks stated that they 'carefully considered the evidence' and decided to reject the appeal with a generic response about there being enough signage and that the spaces are for the use of one vehicle in the bay. No mention at all of the attempt I'd made to pay and being told that nothing was found on the system, which is what I was actually appealed about, hence it seems they probably didn't even read my appeal.

Would I be best to base my defense on the fact that I had tried to pay the original amount etc, or should I continue with the standard para 3 in terms of not admitting to being the driver?

My details are as follows:

- Claim Form (Civil National Business Centre) issue date 09 Jan 2025. 

- DCB Legal representing Euro Car Parks Limited

- AoS submitted via MCOL 16/01/25

- Nothing else done on MCOL, treating as read-only

PoC: 

Particulars of Claim 1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 06/02/2020

3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Your Vehicle Was Not Parked Within A Marked Bay

4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule  4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 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 £.04 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

Supporting images also attached.

Many thanks in advance!

  

KeithP

tigerman_84 said:

I filed the MCOL on 16/01 and I understand that I now have until tomorrow to submit my defence (my own fault for leaving it very late).  

You are mistaken with your Defence filing deadline.

tigerman_84 said:

- Claim Form (Civil National Business Centre) issue date 09 Jan 2025. 

- AoS submitted via MCOL 16/01/25

- Nothing else done on MCOL, treating as read-only  

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's several days 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

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