Civil Enforcement pestering

JD70

Good morning. 

I visited my GP in May 2023. In April 2024 I received a PCN from Snivel Enforcement requesting £60 for parking at the GP surgery car park. From the wording of the letter it sounded as if they had sent letters previously, but I hadn’t received any. I have been at this address for 20 years so it’s not due to change of address. After challenging them and hitting the blank wall, I asked the surgery to intervene which they did. CE replied that they were unable to cancel the charge, I’m not sure they gave a reason. In October 2024 I received a DCB Legal letter demanding money. I challenged this and then 18th Dec 2024 I received a second demand from DCB.

 After a Christmas and New Year being very ill, requiring hospital intervention, I decided I didn’t have any fight left in me and just paid the “£60 if you pay now offer”. Last week I received a letter from Civil Enforcement saying they hadn’t received payment and are now looking at starting court proceedings. A quick check of my bank statement shows that payment was made to DCB Legal on 7th January. 

My first reaction was panic, then it was “let them take me to court”. But after a weekend stewing on it I’m very unsure what to do, thus I’ve arrived here hoping for help and advice. 

I have none of the previous correspondence as I binned it all 6 months after making the payment. 

Thank you in advance

Gr1pr

Complain by email to DCB Legal,  seeing as you paid them, giving details,  dates , reference number and anything else,  tell them to sort it out with their client ASAP and you want confirmation in writing that the matter is settled and concluded,  otherwise it will be considered to be harassment 

In future,  don't bin paperwork until 6 years have elapsed ( 6 years, not 6 months   )

Coupon-mad

 After a Christmas and New Year being very ill, requiring hospital intervention, I decided I didn’t have any fight left in me and just paid the “£60 if you pay now offer”.

Last week I received a letter from Civil Enforcement saying they hadn’t received payment and are now looking at starting court proceedings. A quick check of my bank statement shows that payment was made to DCB Legal on 7th January. 

Please show us the letter offering £60 in December, and the new letter.

JD70

Tried to attach letters, so far no luck. JPEGs attached to the message but pressing post comment does nothing. 

Gr1pr

Add a short sentence to the post, as well as using the picture icon to attach pictures

JD70

Coupon-mad said:

Please show us the letter offering £60 in December, and the new letter.

Both letters as requested.

Coupon-mad

JD70 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Please show us the letter offering £60 in December, and the new letter.

Both letters as requested.

Perfect evidence of a solicitor firm banking monies for a PCN but there appears to be a lack of client involvement. CEL clearly don't know it was settled so could it be that they (one or the other) are just really bad at admin or did they have no involvement in the December £60 offer? Who knows.

This looks similar to when Gladstones were fined for by the SRA, years ago. They banked payments but didn't attribute the payments to a case file:

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/parking-charges-law-firm-fined-for-unallocated-payments-from-drivers

And we had a few cases a couple of years ago where CEL issued court claims for cases that had been paid. The BPA had to investigate and CEL had to apologise, issue refunds and pay to set aside CCJs caused.

Whilst contingency fee agreements - a form of damages based agreements (DBAs) - like the ones seemingly run by no-win-no-fee legal firms for PPCs are not illegal, they can fall foul of the doctrine of champerty. That's an archaic word which used to be deemed illegal conduct because spurious and vexatious claims were dressed up as credible, in return for a share of the profits. There was a fear that a third-party could manipulate the litigation process and, as Lord Denning put it, “be tempted, for his own personal gain, to inflame the damages...” (Re Trepca Mines (No 2) [1963] Ch 199).

If this is champerty and maintenance, it isn't illegal (except in Scotland I believe). However, the law still does not allow a “bare" cause of action, i.e. not one ancillary to a property right or interest, to be transferred to uninterested persons. Despite the changing nature of public policy, Lord Justice Jackson held in his 2010 reports that champerty remains a fundamental concept of English law that should not be lost entirely.

This model can still be contrary to public policy and the arrangement unenforceable as a result. In Tactus Holdings Limited (in admin) v Philip Mark Jordan & Ors [2025] EWHC 133 (Comm), the High Court has recently handed down an important reminder that, notwithstanding the changing nature of public policy, the rules against champerty and maintenance remain. Discussed here:

https://shepwedd.com/knowledge/liberalisation-champerty-not-quite

See also Farrar & Anor v Miller [2022] EWCA Civ 295

That decision reinforces that solicitors must not engage in arrangements that give them a purely commercial interest in their clients' litigation, something that is disallowed in order to uphold the integrity of the solicitor-client relationship and the role of solicitors as officers of the court. Discussed here:

https://gatehouselaw.co.uk/champerty-public-policy-and-the-winds-of-change-out-of-breath/

IMHO in certain questionable or 'market failure' sectors this litigation conduct should be banned because it is contrary to public policy. Private parking is one such sector. It could be argued that this funding model is champertous and contrary to existing and overarching public (KADOE keeper liability - PPC must remain the data controller) policy. The DVLA should have banned this as part of the KADOE rules over a decade ago. The DVLA banned MIL Collections which was assigning and running parking cases for excessive profit.

In determining whether an arrangement is champertous, the courts will consider whether the intervention is harmful to the administration of justice, or the interest of the parties directly affected, particularly defendants. In England and Wales, in order for an arrangement to amount to maintenance or champerty there must be an element of impropriety, such as disproportionate profit or excessive control on the part of the third-party funder.

And in Scotland, these parking DRA bulk litigation contingency fee agreements might not even be legal because most funded litigation agreements aren't, AFAIK.

This is timely because the CJC has literally just published its final report on litigation funding and legislation looks likely.



So, what to do?

I would do a 3 pronged fightback including attaching proof of your payment to all of these:

1. complain (not by phone) to DCB Legal and tell them you'll report them to the SRA for what looks like a breach of professional standards, if they fail to apologise and refund the £60.

2.  complain (not by phone) to CEL and say you've found out that they were investigated by the BPA in recent years for issuing court claims and causing CCJs in cases that had already seen the PCN paid. The same is happening here. Tell them you will report CEL to the BPA if they fail to apologise, get DCB Legal to refund the £60 immediately and cancel this PCN before you go to the press.

3.  use this evidence to show the government what these firms are doing to people. Show your evidence letters and the proof of payment to the MHCLG and tell them they MUST ban DRFs.

Normally, bulk Claimants keep each Claimant involved to an extent. Even in bulk litigation (such as Bott & co who run lots of airline consumer compensation claims) the Claimant consumer is consulted when it comes to settlements.

Coupon-mad

THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION -

Your case is important.

Before the end of next week please please do the government's Public Consultation before the deadline.

See this thread: -

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

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that.

But I've written some guidance on that thread. I have covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Your case has new/different evidence too, and I've explained in my last reply what to say to the MHCLG in the section about why DRFs must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

JD70

Coupon-mad said:

THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION -

Your case is important.

Before the end of next week please please do the government's Public Consultation before the deadline.

See this thread: -

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

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that.

But I've written some guidance on that thread. I have covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Your case has new/different evidence too, and I've explained in my last reply what to say to the MHCLG in the section about why DRFs must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

Letters sent to both companies. I’ll keep you updated with their responses. 

I’ll look at this public consultation link tomorrow, probably will be asking questions. 

Thank you for your help so far.