I Park Services Ltd Charge

Gr1pr

Could be 1, 10 or 100 ! Who knows. ? ( who cares ? )

The statute under the Limitations Act 1980 is 6 years in England and Wales ( to bring a court claim against you. )

James_Poisson

You don't have a debt, just some two bit lazy scammer that claims you owe them money who engages a free debt collection company to send out threatening letters of no real substance hoping people will pay them money for old rope.

Car1980

These go to DCBL and then DCB Legal.

Come back for reassurance when you get a letter headed Letter Before Claim from DCB Legal.

AircraftHandler

Good afternoon,

I have received a letter from DCBLegal stating 'Letter of Claim', and its a formal letter of claim in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

What are my next steps with this please? Do i copy the generic letter from the Newbie thread, and send to the company email?

Gr1pr

Correct, follow the LoC response template advice

AircraftHandler

I have added this to my email.

"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). Move on to weaker victims.

Although I was the registered driver of this vehicle, I was not the driving at the time. This was such a long time ago, I have no idea what this is about and do not believe I can be held liable for this.

The alleged 'debt' is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended."

Should I add anything else for the email?

Regards

yarpsnehpets

Registered keeper NOT 'registered driver'

AircraftHandler

Updated:

"Dear Sirs,

Your ref: (Removed by Forum Team)

Claimant: I Park Services Ltd

I refer to your Letter of Claim dated 25 September 2026.

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

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the material time. I was not the driver.

I dispute the alleged debt in full. Any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

In particular:

1. I put you and your client to strict proof that a Notice to Keeper fully compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was served within the required time limits and containing all the prescribed information.
2. I put you to strict proof that I was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.
3. The alleged event is so long ago that I have no recollection of it and hold no relevant documents.

Please provide, within 14 days, the following documents on which you intend to rely:

• The original Parking Charge Notice / Notice to Driver (if any) and the Notice to Keeper, together with proof of service
• All photographs of the vehicle and the alleged contravention
• Clear photographs or copies of the signage in place at the location on the relevant date, and a site plan showing their locations
• Evidence of the landowner’s authority for I Park Services Ltd to issue and pursue parking charges and to litigate in its own name
• A full itemised breakdown of the sum claimed, including any added debt-recovery or legal charges
• Any other documents or evidence relied upon

Until the above is provided and the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims has been properly complied with, any proceedings would be premature.

I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,"

Coupon-mad

I'd reply as you planned, saying you weren't driving and add this:

The parking operator's own camera pictures show a female. I won't be naming her but I am attaching a copy of my Photo ID to prove this wasn't me driving. That kills any stupid reply trying to mislead me about Elliott v Loake.

If your client thinks there was a clearly signed 'relevant obligation' and believes that they also complied with Schedule 4 of the POFA, kindly supply a contemporaneous image of the sign and confirm whether or not they are relying on Schedule 4.

If they aren't, they and you must now erase my data and crawl back under your respective stones because I've hereby proved there is no longer a 'reasonable cause' to process my keeper data.