MET Parking KFC Gatwick, DCBL debt recovery, Complaint rejected

fine9998

I recently received a DCBL notice of debt recovery for £170 regarding a PCN that apparently occurred November last year, and this is the first correspondence I receive regarding this case. I sent a complaint to MET Parking using the templates from the Newbies thread, but I received a response from them saying that they did send it to me and sent me PDFs of the original PCN letters and a Unity5 certificate of postage to show they sent it. Is there something wrong in the complaint I sent/anything important I missed that could have caused this to be rejected? Also, what are the next steps I can take, and is there anything I can do next regarding this situation? I've looked in the Newbies thread but couldn't find anything, but if it is there could someone link it please.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!

My complaint:

"Regarding Parking Charge Notice [PCN Number](01/11/2024) for Vehicle Registration [Reg.]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to lodge a formal appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) referenced above as hirer of the vehicle above on the date in question and I am not obliged to identify the driver therefore I decline to do so. I am also making a formal complaint regarding the unacceptable process followed and the complete failure to comply with statutory requirements.

Please be aware that no statutory notices or correspondences were ever received from Met Parking for the alleged event. The first and only communication received was a Notice of Debt Recovery from Direct Collections Bailiffs Ltd for the above PCN dated 01/10/2025. This represents a delay of over eleven months since the alleged event, which is unacceptable.

Thus as hirer I wish to make a formal complaint and appeal this PCN on the following grounds, which individually are sufficient to require cancellation.

1. You have failed to meet the conditions required to transfer liability from the driver to the hirer. The governing legislation covering hire vehicles, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'), sets out a mandatory procedure and timeframe to serve a "Notice to Hirer" however no such "Notice to Hirer" was ever received for this charge. Your failure to serve this statutory notice within the prescribed time period means you have forfeited any right to pursue me for this charge.

2. You are unable to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper or hirer pursuant to Schedule 4 of POFA because airport land such as at Gatwick do not fall under ‘relevant land’ as defined in POFA.

Therefore, given that Met Parking has forfeited its right to hirer liability for this PCN, please confirm in writing to my email address that you shall now cancel this charge. Alternatively, should you choose to reject my challenge, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details, and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that I may escalate the matter to POPLA with further evidences.

Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your response within the relevant timescales specified under the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice.

Yours Faithfully"

MET Parking Response:

"Good afternoon,

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above parking charge.

[Hire Company] advised us you were the hirer of this vehicle and advised us of your address. Please see attached correspondence that was sent to you with postage evidence. However, if you had moved addressed from [Address], if this is the case for not receiving our correspondence and for us to investigate this, please send evidence of deeds, or a tenancy agreement and a utility bill showing your new address.

 As you are aware the above charge is currently with our debt resolution agents, Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd, all correspondence should be addressed to them. They can be contacted via the following methods:

Email: collections@dcbltd.com

By law we are required to inform you that Ombudsman Services provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.

Further correspondence sent to us regarding these parking charges may go unanswered.

Kind regards

Customer Services"

Gr1pr

See post 4 in the newbies sticky thread in announcements,  its about ignoring debt collectors letters,  especially as its historical from a year ago 

The appeal window closed before last xmas

fine9998

Gr1pr said:

See post 4 in the newbies sticky thread in announcements,  its about ignoring debt collectors letters,  especially as its historical from a year ago 

The appeal window closed before last xmas

I just saw all the warnings about not making a thread regarding debt collection letters, apologies for that. So should I just wait for them to send a Letter Before Claim? And for this case is there a chance of winning if it does get to that stage?

Coupon-mad

We always win because MET use DCB Legal and they always discontinue defended claims. These cases are all the same and dead easy. No costs or CCJ risk. Nothing bad.

Think of a court claim as the dispute resolution & the 'end game' you were never offered.

fine9998

Coupon-mad said:

We always win because MET use DCB Legal and they always discontinue defended claims. These cases are all the same and dead easy. No costs or CCJ risk. Nothing bad.

Think of a court claim as the dispute resolution & the 'end game' you were never offered.

How defended would this case roughly be, because I'm unsure what the strength of their Unity5 Certificate of Postage is if it gets to that stage, would the burden of proof somehow fall on me to somehow prove that I didnt receive it or something?

Gr1pr

The burden of proof is with the claimant via DCB Legal,  you don't have to prove anything as the defendant 

Due to the fact that they discontinue just before the hearing fee must be paid by the claimant,  it won't get to the hearing stage where any burden is tested in the courtroom

Coupon-mad

fine9998 said:

Coupon-mad said:

We always win because MET use DCB Legal and they always discontinue defended claims. These cases are all the same and dead easy. No costs or CCJ risk. Nothing bad.

Think of a court claim as the dispute resolution & the 'end game' you were never offered.

How defended would this case roughly be, because I'm unsure what the strength of their Unity5 Certificate of Postage is if it gets to that stage, would the burden of proof somehow fall on me to somehow prove that I didnt receive it or something?

Nope.

Burden of proof remains with them and I think you have missed what I said "they always discontinue defended claims".

No hearing.

It is a game of poker then they fold.