DCB Legal response to LoC rebuttal.

tincombe

This is disgraceful:
10. We are minded that you make mention of not being the driver of the vehicle on the date of contravention, however upon receipt of the notice to keeper in April 2023, liability needed to have been transferred to the appropriate party. As no such appeal or notification was sent to our client at the material time, you have now become liable for the charge as the vehicles registered keeper.  

Whereas, as noted by Coupon-mad, the law(Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, para. 4):

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle

4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5...are met..

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4

5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—

(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

(2)Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.

A Letter of Claim is not 'proceedings', therefore the solicitor has stated a terminological inexactitude i.e. lied. In my opinion purposely in order to coerce the recipient into paying. 

I'd complain to the:

 Solicitors Regulatory Authority: (https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor/);

Euro Car Parks: https://www.eurocarparks.com/complaints-policy/

This has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the claim so don't go into these. 

Car1980

Yes. DCB use this line as well, so they've obviously been briefed by DCB Legal upstairs.

THERE IS NO 28 DAY TRANSFER OF LIABILITY WINDOW.

Coupon-mad

Never has been but the IPC spout it too. The approach of the worst in this industry seems to be if they say something often enough it will stick because they hope rookie Civil Servants at the MHCLG will fall for it.

And if they mimic the statutory CoP (with LOTS of glaring omissions and very sneaky wording changes) and set up a false scrutiny board to boot, they might get away without a statutory regime. They hope. We'll see!

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

Dear DCB Legal,

Your reply makes no sense and in particular, this:

"12. With reference to the first question raised in your correspondence and paragraph 2a above, you would have been made aware of the £70.00 debt recovery fee upon arrival at the site. The signage would have made you aware that failure to adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park would result in a PC amounting to £100.00 but reduced to £60.00 if payment was made within the first 14 days of receipt of the PC. Further to this if the PC of £100.00 was not paid in the time frames stipulated in the enclosed Notice to Keeper, then a debt recovery fee of £70.00 would be added, as the matter will be passed of for recovery."

Given the driver was my deceased brother, I would not "have been made aware of the £70.00 debt recovery fee upon arrival at the site. The signage would have made you aware...". Nope. I wasn't there that day.

But I doubt that the £70 imaginary sum was prominently displayed, if mentioned at all on the signs.  Then again, neither you nor I have actually seen the sign, have we?  And telling me about some hugely disproportionate increase weeks later, as a fait accompli ('pay up or else it increases!') in a NTK - if your client did tell me about the extortion of the fake £70 'fee', which I doubt - came far too late.

Talking of "too late" it is in fact (and in law) not too late for me to transfer liability to the driver.  The driver was:

Brother's name (deceased)
c/o the executor of the estate
Address of the executor
Postcode

I have fulfilled my obligations under the PoFA Schedule 4, which imposes no deadline except that this must be done before legal action commences. Legal action has not 'commenced' at pre-action stage.

This means that your client cannot legally pursue me now that they know the driver's name and address where his executor can be reasonably contacted.

If you don't understand the legal implications, feel free to pass this to a grown up and free yourself up for seeking out weaker victims and picking off the low hanging fruit.  

yours faithfully

richnixsea said on 17 January

Thanks - sent the letter (email.)

Did they reply yet?

richnixsea

Yes, I had a notice of holding then yesterday I got this:-

[Removed by Forum Team] Mon, Feb 17, 1:27 PM (18 hours ago) to me

 Dear [Removed by Forum Team],

We write further to correspondence sent from our office dated 20th January 2025. 

Upon review of this matter with our client, this matter is no longer on hold. We now respond to the same as follows. Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”) states “The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. 

For the purpose of the Act; “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper. 

The DVLA confirmed that you were the Registered Keeper at the time the parking charge notice was issued and as such you are presumed to be the Keeper. 

Our Client therefore has the right to recover the parking charge from you as the Keeper of the vehicle. 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. 

However, in light of the above, I can confirm that that our client would be prepared to settle this matter in the parameters outlined bel

ow. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

In relation to the above matter. I can confirm our Client would be agreeable to £136.00 in full and final settlement of this Claim. The current outstanding balance is £170.00. 　　

　 Should you be agreeable to this offer, please confirm the same within 14 days. 

Payment can be made via our website www.dcblegal.co.uk, by calling our office on 0203 838 7038 or via bank transfer:　 　　　 Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account　　 　　　

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

If you are not agreeable, we may continue to follow the Court process as normal. Kind Regards, [Removed by Forum Team]  Administration Associate DCB Legal Ltd Tel: 0203 434 0433 | DX 23457 Runcorn dcblegal.co.uk | Twitter | Linkedin | Facebook

Car1980

So, they're still sticking to the 28 day non-existent rule, but avoiding mentioning it.

"You did neither" is irrelevant because you subsequently did, within the only time limit - before proceedings.

They can't just ignore the driver details they have been given, citing "balance
of probabilities" with zero evidence to the contrary.

Absolutely appalling considering the awful circumstances.

patient_dream

As Coupon-mad said earlier, there is no sense here from DCBL
A Judge may will decide that this is nonsensical which it is.

These are the normal poor tactics that DCBL employ .
Will they let this go to court and be spanked by a judge ?   Will they chicken out and waste your time, and the courts time ?   
Check out the famous DCBL DISCONTINUATION THREAD ..... TIMEWASTERS 

Play the game with DCBL, it's great fun

Car1980

Any court claim defence should be short and sweet in my opinion, include the death certificate (no, don't wait until the witness statement to include this) and aim for an immediate strike out.

Car1980

It also amuses me that they have supposedly and genuinely lost £70 in all this (the poor souls). So why would they accept a £34 discount? That would take them from zero profit to making a loss of £34. How perculiar. Who is paying Ms Mwamba's wages?

richnixsea

I haven't received a court claim yet, should I respond to this at all?