Notice of Debt Recovery - DCBL (Scotland)

Woody407

Hi all, apologies for yet another DCBL thread (I have read all the others but none seem to relate specifically to Scotland).

My own tale starts back in August 2021 when we parked at a site run on behalf of the landowner by Euro Car Parks:

In short, we paid the fee (or thought we did), only to receive a PCN by post a short time later.

I duly appealed this with ECP, (obviously failed) and then escalated to POPLA, who sent CCTV stills showing me driving, which is impossible to dispute.  My response is below:

Good Afternoon, 

Thank you for providing the evidence submitted by Euro Car Parks in order for me to view it.

Euro Car Parks have chiefly provided evidence of my vehicle being in the car park between the times they state and have included photographs (presumably CCTV stills) showing myself as the driver on the date in question. 

None of this is in dispute, however.  

My only disagreement with ECP is because they allege that adequate payment was not made for my parking period.  I however, strongly contend that coinage to the full value of £2.40 (covering 2 hours' parking) was duly inserted into the ticket issuing machine.

Euro Car Parks include what looks like an excerpt from a spreadsheet which shows that the ticket issuing machine registered only £2.20, and issued a ticket to that value (somewhat illogical in and of itself as this does not correspond to any parking period fee).

The chief component of my argument is that ECP's ticket issuing machine has failed to register one of the 20p coins offered as payment, and that in fact the full sum of £2.40 was deposited - as I intended to park for a period not exceeding 2 hours that day (as a legitimate and verified customer of one of the businesses operating from City Quay).

ECPs own pictures clearly show that the parking fee for 1 hour is £1.20, and for 2 hours it is £2.40.

It does not follow any logic that a person intending to pay for only one hour would deposit the sum of £2.20, as this is a full £1 over and above the cost of one hour's parking.  Had I only deposited £1.20 and stayed for the period I did, the inference could fairly be made that I was attempting to obtain free parking for part of, or one full extra hour, and the PCN would be justified.

Please consider the following:

1. Why would a person deliberately deposit a sum and obtain a corresponding ticket which does not tally with any parking periods?  

2. Do you consider that this makes any sense, or is it far more likely that the ticket issuing machine has failed to register a coin?

3. Why would a person deliberately deposit a sum of money which is so close to the fee, but leave themselves open to a PCN for the sake of such a small sum as 20p?

I intended to park for a period not exceeding 2 hours, which was indeed the case and can be verified from ECPs entry and exit time evidence.  I also hereby state (with the full agreement of my wife, who paid) that the sum of £2.40 was duly deposited as full payment and in good faith, in the form of 2x £1 coins and 2x 20p coins. 

Unfortunately, the ticket issuing machine has failed to register one of the 20p coins - but did not reject it - which would have alerted my wife to this fact.  ECPs pictures show that the coin reject tray is metallic, and is at the base of the ticket machine.  A rejected coin would thus have been clearly audible as it fell into the tray.  Had the machine rejected the coin (rather than simply failed to register it), my wife could reasonably be assumed to have heard this occurring and would have duly reinserted said coin.

In my opinion the clear conclusion for any adjudicator to reach is that we attempted in good faith, and to the fullest of our ability, to pay the required fee; and that a single failed coin detection by the ticket issuing machine has led to this situation.  The crux of this is the fact that the sum of £2.20 was registered - a sum that makes no sense in the case of anyone intending to pay for one hour only.

Surely any objective observer presented with the evidence in this case would reach the conclusion that the failure of the parking ticket machine to register one single coin is by far and away the most likely explanation for this unfortunate situation.

Yours Faithfully, etc.

*ENDS*

POPLAs response is as follows:

The assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the appeal be Refused 

The reasons for the assessor's determination are as follows:

Assessor summary of operator's case:

 The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as the P&D/permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking. 

Assessor summary of appellant's case:

 The appellant’s case is that their wife entered two £1 coins and two 20p coins into the machine, making a total of £2.40 which covered 2 hours of parking. They state they displayed this ticket as required. They state that Euro Car Parks (ECP) demonstrated that only £2.20 was paid, which only covers the duration of 1 hour. They state the machine has failed to register one of the 20p coins and it was not rejected by the machine. They say paying an extra £1 would not make sense if they only intended to pay for 1 hour of parking.

The appellant states the parking charge is grossly out of proportion to ECP’s alleged loss of 20p.

The appellant has provided evidence of their custom at one of the businesses served by this car park to support the appeal. 

Assessor summary of reasons:

 The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver.

When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “PAY & DISPLAY… CHARGES APPLY 08:00 TO 18:00 HOURS MONDAY TO SUNDAY… PAY AT PAY AND DISPLAY MACHINE PLEASE ENTER FULL VEHICLE REGISTRATION VIA THE KEY PAD CHECK TARIFF INSERT CORRECT MONEY FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS ON SCREEN… UP TO 2 HOURS £2.40… THIS CAR PARK IS CONTROLLED, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUE OF A £100 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE”.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the motorist’s vehicle, entering the car park at 15:29, and exiting at 17:24, totalling a stay of 1 hours and 55 minutes.

The operator has provided evidence of a system search for the registration xxxxxxx, to show that there was a payment of £2.20 was made for the vehicle in question to park for a total of 1 hour. They have also provided a copy of the site map, indicating the locations of each sign placed within the car park.

I will now examine all the information provided to determine if it makes a material difference to the validity of the PCN.

The appellant explains that their wife entered two £1 coins and two 20p coins into the machine, making a total of £2.40 which covered 2 hours of parking. They state they displayed this ticket as required. They state that Euro Car Parks (ECP) demonstrated that only £2.20 was paid, which only covers the duration of 1 hour. They state the machine has failed to register one of the 20p coins and it was not rejected by the machine. They say paying an extra £1 would not make sense if they only intended to pay for 1 hour of parking. The appellant has provided evidence of their custom at one of the businesses served by this car park to support the appeal.

I agree with the appellant that paying an extra £1 would not make sense if the appellant only intended to pay for 1 hour of parking and I accept that the appellant probably paid with two £1 coins and two 20p coins. If this was the case, the payment machine has not registered a 20p coin, meaning the full tariff for 2 hours has not been validated. This will have been stated on the machine and on the printed pay and display ticket, showing that the appellant has only made a valid payment for 1 hour. I appreciate the appellant was a customer at Wild Shore Dundee and accept that they did not intend to breach the terms of the site. However, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure the full tariff has been paid to cover the full duration of stay. Without tangible evidence, I cannot prove that the appellant did pay the full tariff and therefore must conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. *Abridged for clarity.

*ENDS*

Please note particularly the sentence I have highlighted in bold:

I accept that the appellant probably paid with two £1 coins and two 20p coins.

ECP then continued with demands for payment which I ignored, in accordance with the advice I gleaned from this marvellous site.  Soon after, the demands stopped - "Great, thought I, they've given up".

Roll forward to today, when I received the Notice of Debt Recovery from DCBL.

Having dutifully read post #4 of the Newbies thread, I understand that I am to ignore this and any subsequent DCBL bumf.

Could someone confirm this, and maybe advise whether the statement I highlighted in bold would be of any use should this go to court?

Sorry for the long post and genuine thanks to anyone who reads it and can respond.

W407

KeithP

The fourth post of the NEWBIES thread explains exactly how to deal with debt collector's letters, but to summarise that post - ignore them.

Just to mention...
You stated that they have a picture of the driver.
What I don't understand is how a parking company can possibly determine that the pictured driver is the vehicle's Registered Keeper.

In other words, you made a big mistake in telling the parking company that the RK was the driver.
Without that information, in Scotland there is no way that any driver's liability can be transferred to the RK.

Woody407

Yes, it's a bit unfortunate that I used the phrase "pictures showing me driving"...

Never mind.  I will wait for the inevitable Letter Before Claim and then utilise the excellent advice in the NEWBIES thread to fight it every step of the way.
I know we did NOTHING wrong, and I must fight this on principle. 

Thanks for your reply Keith, this is a fantastic resource and I am extremely grateful it exists.

LDast

If this was in Scotland and you're resident there, even if you get an LoC, nothing will come of it. They will not bring a claim under the Simple Procedure in Scotland. It would cost them more than they could ever hope to recover, never mind the jurisdiction issues.

Grizebeck

Ignore simple as.

Woody407

Thanks all for your responses 👍

Le_Kirk

Woody407 said:

I have read all the others but none seem to relate specifically to Scotland.

Did this not give you a clue in the NEWBIE sticky?  No keeper liability in Scotland (yet).

Q - ''I'm in Scotland/NI, so is the advice different?''

YES. IF THE EVENT TOOK PLACE IN SCOTLAND OR NORTHERN IRELAND, WE SUGGEST YOU DO (ALWAYS!) COMPLAIN TO STORE MANAGEMENT IF YOUR PCN IS FROM A RETAIL PARK, AND SEND THE USUAL TEMPLATE APPEAL FOR YOUR CASE, NOT SAYING WHO WAS DRIVING. HOWEVER, DO NOT TRY POPLA BECAUSE POPLA (IN A CASE THAT TOOK PLACE OUTSIDE ENGLAND/WALE) WILL REQUIRE YOU TO STATE IF YOU WERE DRIVING OR NOT, AND THAT IS THE ONE THING NOT TO DISCLOSE.

Woody407

Yes, Le_Kirk, I was a little late to the party and stupidly used ECPs documentation to launch my appeal and then go to POPLA... Should have come here first 🤷‍♂️

Coupon-mad

Ignore this PCN and the letters (pics are in the NEWBIES post 4) but note that our advice will change in a year, when the rogue industry is regulated. Will also apply in Scotland.

Search the forum for these words (or some of them):

Scotland parking new law keeper liability not retrospective

Woody407

Thanks Coupon-Mad, I am just at the first DCBL letter stage at the moment, so I will wait until I get something from DCB Legal (should that happen), and will pick it up from there.

With a bit of luck the fact that this took place in Scotland and I am still resident there might put them off pursuing this nonsense any further.

Coupon-mad

You don't need luck. DCB don't litigate in Scotland. Nothing will happen.

But be ready for the law change in a year, as you'll need to be more wary of parking on private land in future. Some PPCs might run a few claims in Scotland (multiple PCN cases are going to prove worth a punt).

But 'keeper liability' is not going to be retrospective, of course. Not this PCN! This one is going precisely nowhere.