PRIVATE PARKING CHARGE - BANK PARK MANAGEMENT LTD - PASSED TO GCTT ENFORCEMENT AGENTS

senseionthemoon

August this year I parked at a train station car park, used the app to make payment - I had to travel a fair distance to collect a car, I had to cancel my trip halfway and return as the car wasn’t ready. 

I went back to park the next day, checking the app I read the parking ticket would last me into midnight of the next day, except that in reality it lasted till midnight of the first day. It could have been my error in haste to catch the train, but I truly believed I was covered for the whole time. 

I received a “final notice” letter from BANK, stating the price had now gone up to £170. I had no initial letters, I had just moved addresses and believe the car was registered to old address, but dvla had already been advised of my new address, I’m under the impression they request details from dvla to get your address to send out letters anyway. 

It’s now been passed onto GTCC ENFORCEMENT who are now threatening “Notice of Transfer to Solicitors”  but the letter states “last chance before solicitors”. 

Not sure what to do here, I was never given chance to pay the initial parking charge, I can admit it was my error initially, but I was never notified in reasonable time, and only given a final notice to make payment at my new address. 

Where do i stand with this? 

Do I pay the £170, ignore? There is no option or opportunity to appeal. 

With BANK they only provided a number to make a phone payment, so I sent them an email before it was transferred to GTCC. No reply. Then transferred. 

What do I do? 

Gr1pr

Post 4 in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum 

IGNORE the debt collectors letters 

Ensure that the DPO at Bank Parking have your new,  correct address 

Its worth noting that Bank are only allowed to access the dvla database once per case,  they don't get multiple digs, just the one, and only one

Coupon-mad

Yep. Read the NEWBIES thread post 4 - look at the pictures of £170 threatograms.

Long term:

Ignore these laughable letters, except if you move house within 6 years as you clearly have to check each letter to be sure it's not a Letter of Claim (see post 2 of NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST).

See my signature for where to click, look:

senseionthemoon

Thank you for the advice.

I have read through the newbies thread and followed the steps.

I had ignored all the letters, and have since received a Letter of Claim from DCBL who I believe acquired the debt, to which I have responded to their email with the generic response as stated on the newbies thread.

This is their response;

7th April

Dear Mr Keeper,

We write to acknowledge safe receipt of your formal response to our Letter of Claim sent to you in respect of this matter.

Having considered your response, our position in respect of this matter remains as per our Letter of Claim. We note that despite your points of dispute, there is an absence of any evidence in support of the same so that we may consider this with our Client. If you do have evidence which you believe supports your dispute, please furnish us with the same within the 30 days afforded to you.

As it stands, the initial 30 day timeframe under the Pre-Action Protocol remains, and County Court proceedings will be issued following expiry of this 30 day period, without any further reference to you.

We strongly recommend that you contact a member of our dispute resolution team on 0203 838 7038, as a matter of urgency so we may discuss this matter with you and avoid a Claim being issued against you.

If you are at all unsure of your legal position, you may wish to seek independent legal advice

The initial letter of claim was dated 10th of March 2026, so I believe the 30 days will have elapsed by today 9th April 2026.

The DCBL have now apparently dug up some “unpaid parking charges” dating back to 2022, when I lived in a different city and attended a gym which allowed free parking to members, under condition you input your registration to their systems. I may have forgotten to input a few times, and with the parking managed by a separate company, I was issued with a parking charge notice, which I never actually received at the time.

The sum they are seeking from these charges is £410 (with added fees) and the letter is headed “Notice of Debt Recovery”

How do I proceed?

With regard to evidence in respect of the Letter of Claim, I have since received my payment information, as I made payment through an app called “Twinpay”, but it seems my error was not selecting the right amount of time.

I had paid until midnight of 13th of August, assuming this meant 00:00 14th of August. I believed I was covered for the entirety of the period of parking, but was only covered 12 hours.

How do I proceed?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81754284#Comment_81754284

Coupon-mad

We don't need to see that template again.

Instead, search the forum for it and spare us!

Coupon-mad

The sum they are seeking from these charges is £410 (with added fees) and the letter is headed “Notice of Debt Recovery” 

And this letter is already shown inthe pictures you saw when you read post 4 of the NEWBIES thread. Again, no advice needed.

🙂

Jame4ters

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81956302#Comment_81956302

it’s all standard. Keep reading and following the advice given

senseionthemoon

Claim Form.png

Doc_20260517_072346.png

Hello all,

Just an update on the case.

Below was my response to their LOC;

Dear DCB Legal Team, 
Your ref: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Proposed legal proceedings
Claimant: Bank Park Management Limited
I refer to your letter of claim.
I confirm that my address for service for the time being is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:
xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxx
You should revert to your client because the 'propensity to pay' score in my case is zero, so any claim is hopeless and a waste of the court fee (whether 'fronted' by your firm or not). 
The alleged 'debt' is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.
Yours faithfully,

I eventually received the claim form dated 11/05/26, I have now filled out the AOS on MCOL website 17/05/26, I assume this will be logged as received from 18/05/26.

Following the newbies thread, I have drafted the following response, please review and let me know if this is strong or anything I should change. I have read through a number of threads but sometimes the details become a little confusing. Defence as follows;

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, PD16 paragraphs 3 and 7, failing to state all facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action. Further, the Claimant has improperly added an additional sum to the original Parking Charge, which is not recoverable and amounts to an attempt at double recovery. Such conduct is unreasonable pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g). The Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 confirmed that the parking charge itself already incorporates the ordinary costs of operation and enforcement. The additional sums claimed are therefore denied and the Court is invited to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4.
2. The allegations are denied. The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle. Due to the delay in proceedings and the initial correspondence having been sent to a previous address, the Defendant was deprived of a fair opportunity to address the matter at an earlier stage. The Defendant had updated their driving licence address but had not yet updated the V5C at the relevant time, resulting in the original notices not being received.
3. It is admitted that the vehicle was parked at the location on the material date. However, payment for parking was made using the payment application associated with the car park, and the driver reasonably believed that valid payment had been successfully completed for the intended parking period. The Defendant holds evidence of payment being made via the app, although the system-generated record does not clearly reflect the intended parking session due to an issue within the application or its processing. This discrepancy was not known at the time and was only identified after receipt of the claim correspondence. Any alleged failure to match the correct duration or registration details was not deliberate and did not amount to a refusal or avoidance of payment. Upon receiving the initial correspondence (after the address issue was rectified), the Defendant attempted to raise a dispute within the timeframe specified but received no substantive response prior to escalation to debt recovery and then litigation.
4. It is denied that any enforceable contractual term was breached. In order to form a contract there must be offer, acceptance and consideration, all of which must be clearly and prominently communicated. Pursuant to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Court is required to assess fairness and transparency of consumer notices and terms. The Defendant avers that although payment was actively attempted and believed to have been successfully completed via the required application, the system did not accurately register the intended session, creating a technical or procedural failure outside the driver’s control. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the signage in place, the contractual terms relied upon, and full audit/payment system records showing the alleged breach.
5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, schedules, and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner.
6. To impose a Parking Charge, as well as a breach, there must be a legitimate interest and adequate notice of the charge and obligations. The Defendant avers that this case arises from a situation where a motorist attempted to comply with the payment requirements but was affected by a failure in the payment application’s recording or processing of the transaction. The charge is therefore not justified as a proportionate or fair enforcement outcome in the circumstances.
7. Attention is drawn to ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which confirms that a parking charge must serve a legitimate interest and not operate as a penalty. The Defendant distinguishes this case on the basis that the material facts involve attempted payment rather than non-payment, and a system failure rather than intentional breach. The Claimant is put to strict proof that their contractual terms extend to penalising motorists who have made payment but where the system has failed to correctly record or process the transaction.
8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act and associated government consultations reflect ongoing concerns regarding disproportionate additional charges and debt recovery practices in private parking enforcement. The Defendant relies on this as contextual support that such additional sums are widely considered contentious and subject to regulatory scrutiny.
9. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, any claim against a keeper must be strictly compliant with statutory requirements. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of full compliance. Any additional sums beyond the original parking charge are unrecoverable and not permitted under the statute.
10. The Defendant reserves the right to seek costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) and CPR 46.5 in the event of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant. The conduct of pursuing inflated sums in circumstances where payment was attempted and where the alleged breach arises from a system or app recording issue is denied to be reasonable. The Defendant will rely on the Court’s discretion in respect of costs should the Claimant continue with proceedings.

For the record, I was the driver, I did make payment although did not realise it did not cover the intended period of stay (made while rushing to catch a train etc), I had changed addresses updated my license details, but failed to update V5C of the car so initial correspondence was presumably sent to my previous address, the first letter I received was an inflated charge and I attempted dispute within the time given but was given no response and the debt passed over to DCBL.

Kindly review and advise,

Many thanks

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 11/05/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 15/06/26

That defence does not look like the template defence; any reason you would not use the template written by @Coupon-mad?

senseionthemoon

Apologies, here is a revised version where I have changed only paragraph 3 to suit.

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.
2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.
3. The Defendant admits that the vehicle was parked at the location on the material date. However, payment for parking was made using the payment application associated with the car park and the driver reasonably believed that valid payment had been successfully completed for the intended parking period. The Defendant holds evidence showing that payment was made via the app, however the time/date or session details did not register as intended due to an apparent issue with the application or its processing, which was not noticed at the time. Any discrepancy was therefore not a deliberate failure to pay for parking. The Defendant did not receive the original correspondence due to having changed address and updated their driving licence but not yet the V5C. Upon eventually receiving correspondence containing additional charges, the Defendant attempted to dispute the matter within the timeframe stated via email but received no substantive response before the matter was escalated to DCB Legal and subsequently litigation.
4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.
5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).
6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from Beavis.
7. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and

(ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

1. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control 'indicating that there is a market failure'.
2. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.
3. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Coupon-mad

Remove this and you're good to go:

"The Defendant did not receive the original correspondence due to having changed address and updated their driving licence but not yet the V5C. Upon eventually receiving correspondence containing additional charges, the Defendant attempted to dispute the matter within the timeframe stated via email but received no substantive response before the matter was escalated to DCB Legal and subsequently litigation."