DCBLegal LoC on behalf of BaySentry solutions - no return within 2 hours different drivers

waves1234

Hi. Following the advice on the Newbies thread, the keeper in question has ignored the 'debt' letters and has now received a letter of claim. However, before sending an email to DCBLegal (as per post #2 on the newbies thread), they were hoping someone could kindly answer a few questions. 

Some background first:

The keeper never originally received an NTK at their current address and was only made aware of the PCN once they starting receiving the scam 'debt' letters. However, the keeper's mother recently found the NTK at her address, meaning that the PPC had traced the keeper's new address (the address hadn't been updated with the DVLA but this has been done now). On close inspection of the NTK, it is clearly non-POFA (the back page being identical to the Baysentry solutions example on this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6483542/a-thread-of-pictures-of-2023-parking-firm-ntks/p1). However, given that the keeper wasn't aware of the NTK, the POPLA deadline has unfortunately long passed. Given this, it's now at the LoC stage.

Questions arise when it comes to the PCN itself and the alleged contravention. The PCN was issued due to a 'no return within 2 hours' rule at a retail park. This is partially true: the car did return within this time, but the drivers were different. What's hilarious is that the pictures they've provided literally show two different people behind the wheel on each occasion. 

The first question stems from this: who is actually being penalised here? The first driver, second, or both? It's assumed that it's obviously the second, but is this correct? The second question is how should the keeper respond in an email to DCBLegal given this information? Is the fact the original NTK was non-POFA relevant here? Or is that superseded by the fact that there may technically have been no contravention because there were two different drivers and the PPC have no idea whether either one was the keeper?

The case is similar to the one on the following thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6457934/group-nexus-3-hr-free-no-return-within-an-hour-parking-charge?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=no+return+within+an+hour.

However, the person on that thread was not responding to a letter of claim. Therefore, would Coupon-Mad's suggested response on the first comment be relevant, or is it too late. If it's too late, would the non-POFA suggested response on the Newbies thread be the best course of action? Or maybe a combination of both? It's obvious that the PPC have no leg to stand on, so it would be great to get it cancelled at this stage without it dragging on.

Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

The PCN was issued due to a 'no return within 2 hours' rule at a retail park. This is partially true: the car did return within this time, but the drivers were different. What's hilarious is that the pictures they've provided literally show two different people behind the wheel on each occasion. 

It's not too late if it's only at LBC stage.

Reply telling it like it is. Have a bit of a sarcastic laugh in your response. Clearly no term was breached!

waves1234

What do we think about this as a response? 

Dear Sirs,

I refer to your letter of claim on behalf of BaySentry Solutions Ltd, your reference:

I also confirm that my contact address for the time being is as follows and any older address must be erased from your records:

Address

What has happened on the day in question is that the registered keeper has entered the car park and left, as the images suggest on the original Notice to Keeper (NTK).

However, the second visit is from a completely different driver who has taken the same car into the same car park (this is a shared car). There was not one 'period of parking' by one driver; there were two parking events by different people. You will know very well that a car cannot enter into an alleged contract for parking, only the driver of said car. Given that the drivers in this case were different, there has been NO breach of any contract.

What’s laughable is that the pictures provided on the NTK literally show two different people behind the wheel! Do you really think I’m going to give money to a scam organisation that can’t even be bothered to check what they’re sending out?

I’m also aghast at your failure to carry out the most basic of tests to ascertain whether A.) it is actually the same driver, and B.) whether it’s actually the registered keeper. You will know as well as I do that the original NTK is not even POFA 2012 compliant, so there is no keeper liability in this case either.

You have clearly failed to carry out any proper human checks as required by the BPA to avoid pairing two visits together as one. The DLUHC has included a duty to avoid 'double dip' PCNs like this in their re-introduced statutory Code. When are you planning on complying, BaySentry Solutions?

I suggest you cancel my PCN and apologise for invading my privacy, buying my DVLA data without reasonable cause, and tracing me to a new address. You'll lose because this isn't one period of parking and the second driver breached no 'relevant contract' - so 'keeper liability' under the POFA cannot apply; but wait, it wasn’t even POFA-compliant in the first place!

Your faithfully,

Coupon-mad

Good but all this needs changing to 'your client' not 'YOU':

I suggest you cancel my PCN and apologise for invading my privacy, buying my DVLA data without reasonable cause, and tracing me to a new address. You'll lose because this isn't one period of parking and the second driver breached no 'relevant contract' - so 'keeper liability' under the POFA cannot apply; but wait, it wasn’t even POFA-compliant in the first place!

I’m also aghast at your failure to carry out the most basic of tests to ascertain whether A.) it is actually the same driver, and B.) whether it’s actually the registered keeper. You will know as well as I do that the original NTK is not even POFA 2012 compliant, so there is no keeper liability in this case either.

You have clearly failed to carry out any proper human checks as required by the BPA to avoid pairing two visits together as one. The DLUHC has included a duty to avoid 'double dip' PCNs like this in their re-introduced statutory Code. When are you planning on complying, BaySentry Solutions?

waves1234

Okay that's great thanks. Will comment further when they get back to us.

waves1234

Finally received a response to this (in italics below). Makes me laugh how they haven't even bothered to respond to my points ... 

The question is what should we do now? Should we just ignore it? Surely they're not gonna waste their time making a claim they have no chance of winning?  Or should we respond with another sarcy email asking what exactly we're settling given that there hasn't been any breach of contract ...

Do yous suggest we also complain to our MP/local councillors?

Thanks again

Dear ...,

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office dated 07/03/2025.

We now respond to the same as follows.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

We can confirm our Client would be agreeable to £85.00 in full and final settlement of this Claim. The current outstanding balance is £170.00.

You have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment of the £85.00. Failure to make payment may result in a Claim being issued against without any further reference. 　

 Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -

• Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account  
• Sort Code: 20-24-09  
• Account Number: 60964441

You must quote the correct case reference (...) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.

Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to make payment over the telephone or online at ...

Kind Regards,

...

Administration Associate

DCB Legal Ltd

Coupon-mad

Let the claim arrive. You'll never pay as long as you follow all forum advice.