DCB Legal / Smart Parking / Letter of Claim advice

lanky_man

Hello,
I'm looking for some advice having received several letters chasing a debt of £170 for a parking ticket back in 2020 from DCBL, which I ignored, I've now received a Letter of Claim from DCB legal.
This was for overstaying at Kimberley Shopping Centre, Nottingham. Of course this was a long time ago now, but I stayed twice in the same day and the ANPR camera has picked me up entering on the first occasion and exiting on the second.

I raised an appeal with POPLA at the time, who of course aren't really interested, and then didn't hear anything else until a couple of months ago. The issue was subject to a lot of attention at the time due to the number of people this happened to, the local councillor got involved in meetings with the car park operator and there were numerous posts on social media and local/national news. The car park was altered on the back of this, new bollards were added to ensure that vehicles lined up with the camera's on entry and exit.

I've reviewed post #2 of the newbies thread, and with a little help from my AI friend have this template to send.

I'd be grateful for any feedback if this is the correct route to follow, and if I should add anything else to my response. I'm quite happy to go all the way to a hearing about this, but I don't have really any evidence to support my case since it was so long ago now.

Thanks for any support.

To:
[Parking Company Name]
[Their Address from Letter of Claim]

Re: Response to Letter of Claim – PCN Ref: [Insert reference number]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write in response to your Letter of Claim dated [insert date] regarding the Parking Charge Notice referenced above.

I dispute the debt and deny any liability for the alleged contravention. The notice is factually inaccurate and appears to have been issued in error, due to a failure of your ANPR system to record multiple entries and exits on the same day (a "double dip" scenario).

On the date in question, the vehicle in question entered and exited the car park twice, with substantial time between each visit. Your system has incorrectly paired the first entry with the final exit, thereby creating the illusion of an extended stay which did not occur.

I request that you:

1. Provide full, unredacted ANPR images of both the entry and exit timestamps that you are relying on.

2. Disclose any other ANPR images recorded for the same vehicle on that date, as the car was driven off-site between visits.

3. Provide copies of the signage in place at the site on the date of the alleged contravention, including evidence of how and where it was displayed.

4. Provide a copy of your data processing agreement and compliance with ICO guidance for ANPR usage and data retention.

This matter is currently disputed. Please confirm that the case is placed on hold pending a full investigation and disclosure of the requested evidence.

Should you proceed with court action without providing the requested documents or fail to consider this dispute properly, I will draw the court’s attention to your failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]

Coupon-mad

It's not "your ANPR system" nor "that you are relying on" when writing to the legal firm.

Change it all to 'your client must provide' and ask for the orphan images.

Re this appalling POPLA decision:

Of course this was a long time ago now, but I stayed twice in the same day and the ANPR camera has picked me up entering on the first occasion and exiting on the second.
I raised an appeal with POPLA at the time, who of course aren't really interested.

... if POPLA had got this 'double dip' case right, you wouldn't be facing court now. Tell the Government this fact, in answer to questions 13 and 14 in the Public Consultation.

if you want to be part of the push to change things in future, it's very important that people like you tell the Government NOW that:

a) you have no faith in POPLA or their rivals the IAS and consumers desperately need the impartial SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 promised. As long as it is independent (and only ONE appeals service, not two involved in a race to the bottom) that service will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court. A scrutiny body is a good idea but it does not offer any safeguard to review issues on a case-by-case basis that an appeals service would.

b).  THAT 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY THIRD PARTIES LINING UP TO DEMAND MORE MONEY FOR A 'PAYMENT PLAN' THAT NOBODY NEEDS IN SCAM CASES LIKE DOUBLE DIPS BECAUSE YOU WERE NEVER GOING TO PAY. HENCE WHY YOU HAVE NOT ENGAGED SINCE POPLA. WHY WOULD YOU?

c). Tell them about your experience and show them the POPLA error decision. Double dip cases should mean instant cancellation.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

Do it by August at the latest pleeease! We will discuss it on that thread and are already talking about Q13 & 14 today.

lanky_man

@Coupon-mad - Thank you so much for replying! I've adjusted the letter as suggested, good point, the solicitors are acting on behalf of the parking company. I'll feedback into the consultation - it's frustrating that I'm now dealing with these chancers five and a half years later.