DCB Legal response to LoC rebuttal.

Castle

You have left a password showing.

richnixsea

Redacted now....oops

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

The OP said:

I responded to the above, quoting you almost verbatim.

I have now received from HMC&TS a claim form, they (DCBLegal) have ignored the fact that I was not the driver, and the claim is served to me.

I understand that I should reply with an AOS requesting 28 days for preparation of defence.

I will go and read the defence template, and try to prepare for the next stage.

Here is PoC:-

OK just to remind us all of the calibre of DCB Legal in this case:

- the OP told them at LBC stage who the driver was (his late brother) and gave an address for service - clearly serviceable because the executors would receive it - which DCB Legal said they'd write to, but they did not;

- DCB Legal then filed a claim against the bereaved registered keeper anyway, still saying in the claim that they might be pursuing him as the driver. Despite knowing he wasn't.

This one will be a fun conversation at Mediation phone call stage (and even better before a judge but sadly it will never get to a hearing!).

richnixsea Just read the SECOND post of the NEWBIES thread, firstly do the AOS (explained there with a walkthrough pictorial guide) and then use the Template Defence.

Your facts go in paragraph 3. Your brother was 'accused' of overstay at a Shell garage in 2023. Did he ever say why? Was he just queuing then using the carwash?

Sorry if it seems an intrusive question but did he have a medical condition then that would mean he was mobility impaired and thus slower than other drivers and would have needed more time?

richnixsea

- the OP told them at LBC stage who the driver was (his late brother) and gave an address for service - clearly serviceable because the executors would receive it - which DCB Legal said they'd write to, but they did not;

Actually they did, to which I responded:-

LOL! Prepare to reply as Executor confirming the address is serviceable and that the deceased person was known by the family to be the only driver of that car in that month.  However, the executors of the estate of the driver won't be paying unproven 'debts' pursued by parking 'scammers'.

Almost verbatim.

Did he ever say why?

He made two short visits to use a cash machine, the first time he realised that he did not have his wallet and had to leave and return. The evidence showed the vehicle entering the first time and leaving the second time, hence the apparent overstay.

 Sorry if it seems an intrusive question but did he have a medical condition then that would mean he was mobility impaired and thus slower than other drivers and would have needed more time?

He was quite ill at the time and was restricted stamina wise, but this was not the cause of the apparent overstay.

Thank you all, for the help and sympathy shown. I will proceed with the AoS and defence prep.

Regards Steve.

Coupon-mad

Ah it's a double dip case then. Their claim is untenable. This wasn't a single parking event and no breach occurred.

richnixsea

OK, so I have made the AoS via MCOL.

I have searched the forum and found a draft defence:-

3. Referring to the POC: Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. There was no contravention. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper, the Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PC can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is to put strict proof of all of their allegations.

On the date of the alleged contravention the Defendants brother was the driver of the vehicle, a fact conveyed to the claimant. The vehicle was used to access an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) at Shell Clapton, upon attempting to use said ATM it was realised that the driver had forgotten to bring his cash-card. He promptly left and then returned a short time later. The claimant offered as evidence an image of the vehicle entering on the first occasion and leaving on the second occasion with no notes of the vehicle’s movements in the interim.
The Driver has since passed away. The details of the drivers Executors were presented to the Defendant and were serviceable.

3. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has wrongly assumed a parking contravention occurred due to a failure to fully review the Automatic Number Plate Recognition ("ANPR") images. This led the Claimant to wrongly obtain the Defendant’s personal details from the DVLA under false pretenses.

3.1 The Defendant submits that the Claimant’s claim arises from a mistaken interpretation of the vehicle’s movements and the associated parking sessions and is a clear case of “double dipping” as referred to in the IPC code of practice (7.3 note 1).

3.2 The Defendant further asserts that "double dipping" (where a vehicle is mistakenly recorded as having overstayed when it has in fact exited and re-entered the car park during the same day -  IPC code of practice (7.3 note 1)) is a common occurrence and can be caused by factors such as adverse weather conditions, or, more commonly, tailgating. In this case, the Defendant believes that such a scenario occurred, leading to an inaccurate claim of a parking violation.

3.3 The Defendant would like to bring to the attention the specifics in the IPC code of practice (7.3 note 1): ‘The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land, and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant (see Clause 15). The manual check might also reveal where “tailgating” – vehicles passing a camera close together – is a problem, suggesting relocation of the camera might be necessary'. 

3.4 The Defendant asserts that the vehicle was parked legally during both parking sessions and was only in the car park for the time periods for which payments were not required. The claim of a parking contravention is therefore without merit.

3.5 The Defendant contends that the Claimant failed to fully review their ANPR images and failed to properly consider the circumstances of the Defendant’s parking sessions. The Claimant's actions in pursuing this matter are indicative of a lack of due diligence. 

3.6 The Defendant submits that the Claimant's actions in acquiring the Defendant's personal data from the DVLA were unlawful under the DPA 2018. The Claimant did not have a legitimate basis to access the Defendant's details, as the vehicle was not in contravention of parking regulations.

3.7 The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has committed an offence under the DPA 2018 by wrongfully obtaining the Defendant’s personal data from the DVLA based on a false claim of a parking contravention. The Claimant has caused unnecessary distress to the Defendant by relentlessly harassing the defendant pursuing this false claim, which amounts to a breach of the Defendant's rights under the DPA 2018.

Conclusion

3.8 The Defendant respectfully submits that the Claimant’s claim is based on a misunderstanding of the circumstances and an improper assumption of a parking contravention. The Defendant denies liability for the parking charge and asserts that the Claimant’s actions in obtaining personal data from the DVLA were unlawful.

3.9 The Defendant seeks the dismissal of the Claimant's claim, along with the appropriate relief for the breach of the Data Protection Act 2018, and any other remedies the Court deems fit.

3.10 The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim. 

Obviously I need to address the paragraph numbering/italics and I will include the rest of the template.

Any comments?

Regards Steve.

1505grandad

You have referred several times to  -  ".....as referred to in the IPC code of practice....."

However ECP are BPA AoS members.

richnixsea

@1505grandad,

Thanks for that, I think I'm right in suggesting that I can simply swap out the acronym since they share the code of practice quoted.

Steve.

Le_Kirk

The Driver has since passed away. The details of the drivers Executors were presented to the Defendant and were serviceable.

Are you sure that is right, wouldn't the details have been passed to the claimant; you are the defendant?

richnixsea

OOPS,

It should as you rightly point out be the Claimant.

Thanks for the input.

Steve.