DCBL pursuing an old BaySentry fine believed to be cancelled

fishbulb

Hi all, first time poster here, hoping someone can help. Below is the timeline of events for this case. I've seen in other threads that it is customary to refer to 'the driver'.

Timeline:

• December 2022 – A PCN was issued by BaySentry at Victoria Mills (residential development in Shipley/Bradford) for "Parked With No Valid Parking Session/electronic Permit".
• The driver was a tenant at the property. The tenancy agreement included one parking space within the multi-storey car park using ANPR, with the vehicle registration to be registered before moving in, which the driver did.
• The driver's annual permit had expired because they were unaware it required annual renewal. No reminder was received from BaySentry, the property management company or the letting agent.
• Upon receiving the fine in December 2022, the driver appealed to POPLA on the basis that they were unaware of the need for renewal. POPLA rejected the appeal.
• In January 2023, the property management company emailed residents stating that BaySentry had advised that PCNs issued because 12-month permits had expired would be cancelled, and that this had already happened for several residents. The driver still has this email, but it does not mention the driver's specific PCN.
• Nothing further was heard for over three years, and the driver considered the matter closed as a result of the January 2023 email.
• In 2026, DCBL debt collection letters started arriving, followed by a formal Letter of Claim from DCB Legal.

The driver intends to respond to the Letter of Claim, disputing the debt and enclosing the January 2023 email. The driver would really appreciate some advice on the strength of this case and whether there are any arguments or case law that may assist.

Car1980

Yes, I would send DCB Legal your evidence and threaten to counterclaim if they are daft enough to put a claim in.

fishbulb

Here's DBCL's latest reply to the driver on this case. Looks like a stock reply to me. The letter to which they are responding is below.

DCBL email 4/8/26:

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office. We now respond to the same as follows.

When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract, agreeing to the terms by parking, and staying on the site. Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract.

Our client will ensure that there are signs clearly displayed on the land, outlining the terms of the parking. These will generally be displayed at the entrance and exit of the land/ car park, as well as being positioned at various points throughout the land. Client does not need to prove that you read and understood the terms of those signs and will rely on the fact that the signs were situated on the land and that a reasonable person would have seen them. You should always be vigilant when entering any land that you are not familiar with or that you know is privately owned and there are parking terms in place.

A parking charge was issued to you. You were afforded the opportunity to; appeal the parking charge, transfer liability to the driver (if it was not you) or make payment. Neither a successful appeal, nor an adequate nomination were received, yet payment remains outstanding.

We confirm that despite your latest correspondence, our position remains as previously advised. As such, should our client instruct us to proceed with further legal action, we reserve the right to do so without any further reference to you. If you are at all unsure of your legal position, we recommend that you seek your own independent legal advice.

You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment of £170.00. Failure to make payment may result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference.

You must quote the correct case reference when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.

-.-.—

Email from the driver, 31/7/26:

To whom it may concern,

I refer to your Letter of Claim (ref number) on behalf of claimant the BaySentry Solutions Ltd.

I dispute the alleged debt, for the following reasons:

At the time of the alleged contravention, the driver was a tenant at Victoria Mills. The tenancy agreement expressly provided one parking space within the multi-storey car park using the ANPR system, subject to registration of the vehicle.

The Parking Charge Notice arose because the vehicle's annual permit had expired. The driver was unaware that the ANPR registration required annual renewal and received no reminder from BaySentry, the property management company or the letting agent that renewal was required.

This was not an isolated incident. On 18 January 2023, the property management company circulated an email confirming that numerous residents had received Parking Charge Notices due to the expiry of their 12-month permits, and that BaySentry had advised such Parking Charge Notices would be cancelled. The alleged contravention in this case is entirely consistent with that permit renewal issue.

Following receipt of that communication, the driver reasonably believed the matter had been resolved.

In light of the above, it is unclear why this particular Parking Charge Notice is now being pursued some three years on. If your client maintains that this charge was not subject to the permit renewal cancellation process, please explain why and disclose any records relied upon to support that position.

Please also see the attached evidence which supports the above, namely:

• The relevant extract from the tenancy agreement.
  
• My correspondence of 1 Dec 2023, including, as requested at the time, the property management company's email dated 18 January 2023 regarding permit-expiry Parking Charge Notices.

As above, the alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

—-

Any advice on next steps would be very welcome.

Le_Kirk

Is the thread we are on now, concerning the same issue as the thread below: -

Do we need two threads about the same issue? If it is a different/separate issue, keep on but if the same, report one of them to be merged with the other

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6678808/dcbl-not-backing-down

fishbulb

@Le_Kirk yes, it is the same issue, thank you.

Le_Kirk

Can you report one of the threads (using the Red Flag Report button) and ask for the two threads to be merged.