DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 39971--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: October 9, 2024, 6:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you both for your responses. I am not going to appeal to
IAS. I will wait to see if they issue a letter of claim.
Many thanks again for your advice.
#Post#: 39973--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 9, 2024, 6:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
VCS are a litigous bunch so a claim is fairly likely I'd say.
Another point, if you move house before the 6 years for them to
make a claim have expired, be sure to write to VCS and inform
them of your new address for service.
#Post#: 39981--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: b789
Date: October 9, 2024, 7:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They will eventually issue a claim. Whether it actually gets as
far as a hearing is very doubtful and even if it did, there is
no Keeper liability and it would be thrown out on that alone.
#Post#: 40024--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: October 9, 2024, 11:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, very useful advice.
#Post#: 60086--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: March 1, 2025, 7:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good afternoon, I have today received a letter of claim from dcb
legal.
HTML https://imgur.com/a/FprcvYt
I would very much appreciate your advice on next steps please.
Thank you in advance and for your advice to date.
#Post#: 60095--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: b789
Date: March 1, 2025, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Respond with the following letter. Save it as a PDF and attach
it in an email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself.
--- Quote ---
> [Your Name]
> [Your Address]
>
> DCB Legal Ltd
> Direct House
> Greenwood Drive
> Manor Park
> Runcorn
> WA7 1UG
>
> [Date]
>
> By email: info@dcblegal.co.uk
>
> Subject: Response to Letter of Claim – Disputed Debt
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I acknowledge receipt of your Letter of Claim dated 27
February 2025 regarding an alleged debt of £510.00 on behalf of
your client, Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCS). I dispute
this claim in its entirety, both on substantive and procedural
grounds. Accordingly, I require full and detailed clarification
before any further action is taken. Failure to provide the
required information will be considered a breach of the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAP) and may be cited in
any subsequent proceedings.
>
> 1. Pre-Action Protocol Non-Compliance
>
> Your Letter of Claim fails to comply with the requirements of
the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAP) in the following
ways:
>
> [indent]No Clear Breakdown of the Debt (£510.00)
>
> The LoC fails to itemise the charges beyond stating a lump sum
amount.
>
> I require a full breakdown showing:
>
> [indent]- The original Parking Charge(s) amount.
> - Any alleged additional fees, including "debt recovery costs"
or "legal fees."
> - Justification for any additional costs beyond the original
PCN amount.
> - Explanation of how such fees comply with the Supreme Court
ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.[/indent][/indent]
>
> [indent]Failure to Provide Key Evidence
>
> Your letter does not include any documentary evidence to
substantiate the claim, such as:
>
> [indent]- A copy of the original Parking Charge Notice(s)
(PCNs).
> - Photographic or ANPR evidence showing the alleged
contravention, including timestamped images of entry and exit.
> - A full copy of the terms and conditions allegedly breached,
including the signage that the claimant is relying on that
formed the contract with the driver, as displayed at the time of
the alleged contravention.
> - Evidence that VCS has the authority to issue parking charges
at the location in question.
> - Proof that the alleged sum reflects actual loss or
liquidated damages enforceable under contract
law.[/indent][/indent]
>
> [indent]No Demonstration of Keeper Liability Under PoFA 2012
>
> - If your client seeks to rely on the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4, strict compliance is required.
> - I request confirmation that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) sent
complies with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9, including:
>
> [indent]- Clear invitation for the keeper to pay the charge.
> - Delivery within the statutory timeframe.
> - The inclusion of mandatory wording as per PoFA
9(2)(e)(i).[/indent]
>
> - If no such compliance exists, VCS has no basis for holding
me liable as keeper.[/indent]
>
> [indent]Potential Abuse of Process – Unreasonable Additional
Costs
>
> - The addition of any ‘debt recovery costs’ beyond the
original PCN is likely unrecoverable and may constitute an abuse
of process.
> - In Britannia Parking v Semark-Jullien (2020), the courts
ruled that adding a flat £60 debt recovery fee was an abuse of
process and struck out the claim.
> - If this claim proceeds with added fees, I will seek to have
them struck out and will request costs for unreasonable
behaviour.[/indent]
>
> 2. Demand for Further Disclosure
>
> To facilitate a meaningful response and comply with the
Overriding Objective under CPR 1.1, I request the following
within 30 days:
>
> [indent]- A full breakdown of the claimed sum, showing any
debt collection or legal fees.
> - A copy of the original Parking Charge Notice(s) (PCNs).
> - Timestamped ANPR or photographic evidence of the alleged
contravention.
> - Copies of the signage in place at the material time,
including the full contractual terms.
> - Evidence of landowner authority, showing VCS has the right
to issue PCNs at the site.
> - Clarification on whether the claim is pursued under contract
law or trespass.
> - If alleging Keeper Liability, confirmation that all PoFA
2012 requirements have been met.[/indent]
>
> If you fail to provide the above, I will draw this to the
court’s attention as a failure to engage in pre-action conduct,
potentially seeking an adverse costs order.
>
> 3. Next Steps & Potential Complaint
>
> If you fail to provide the requested information or continue
to pursue an unmeritorious claim:
>
> [indent]- I will formally complain to the Solicitors
Regulation Authority (SRA) regarding potential breaches of SRA
Code of Conduct (Principles 1, 4, 5 & 7) regarding misleading
demands for payment.
> - I will escalate a complaint to the DVLA for breach of the
Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract, as VCS’s misuse of
DVLA data warrants investigation and potential sanctions.
> - If you issue a claim without addressing these issues, I will
request summary judgment or strike-out for failure to follow the
PAP.
> - If the claim proceeds, I will seek full costs under CPR
27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable behaviour.[/indent]
>
> 4. No Admission of Liability & Right to Seek Further Advice
>
> This letter should not be construed as an admission of any
liability. I reserve the right to seek independent legal advice,
and if necessary, to counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
>
> Please confirm receipt of this letter and provide a full
response within 30 days.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
> [Your Address]
> [Email Address]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 60106--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: March 1, 2025, 11:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you once again for your advice, which is very much
appreciated. I will do as advised.
#Post#: 67184--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: April 15, 2025, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good afternoon,
Thank you once again for your advice. I have today received the
email below from DCB Legal, in response to the reply that I sent
them, in accordance with your advice above. If you would be so
kind, I would appreciate your further advice on their latest
communication please. They have attached copies of the original
notice, photos of the car, of which I am the registered keeper,
signage at the area in concern, and copies of our previous
correspondence. Thanks in advance.
Dear x,
We write in response to your correspondence received in our
office.
We now respond to the same as follows.
Please find attached all evidence we currently hold on file. We
confirm that prior to the event of a hearing, all relevant
evidence will be provided.
If there are any documents that you have requested, but that are
not attached, it is because we have deemed the request to be
disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive issues
in dispute. We respectfully draw your attention to paragraph
2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you that both parties are
expected to act reasonably and proportionately.
When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site
are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract and
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.
The terms and conditions on the signs stated no stopping. The
vehicle was recorded stopped in an area where stopping was
prohibited as is demonstrated in the photographic evidence
enclosed. The parking charge ("PC") was issued correctly.
In order to identify the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, our
client submitted a request for details to the DVLA. Your details
were provided and thereafter notices were sent to you by our
Client at your serviceable address. Those notices asked you to
either make payment or, if you were not driving, nominate a
driver by providing their name and full address. You did neither
and as such you are now pursued on the basis that you were
driving. On the balance of probabilities, if you were not the
driver, you would have nominated.
The sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by
our Client as a result of your non-payment. Our Client’s
employees have spent time and material attempting to engage in
dispute resolution. This is not our Client’s usual business and
the resources could have been better spent in other areas of the
business. Had you of paid as per the Contract, there would have
been no need for debt resolution so the amount due would not
have increased.
For the avoidance of doubt, please see below a breakdown of the
£510.00 outstanding.
PC no.
PC amount.
Debt recovery fee.
VCSxx
£100.00
£70.00
VCSxx
£100.00
£70.00
VCSxx
£100.00
£70.00
You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment
of £510.00. Failure to make payment will result in a Claim being
issued against you without any further reference.
Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client
account: -
Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
Sort Code: xx
Account Number: xx
You must quote the correct case reference (xx) 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.
Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to
make payment over the telephone or online at
HTML https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.
Kind Regards,
xx
Litigation Support Associate
DCB Legal Ltd
#Post#: 67200--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: b789
Date: April 15, 2025, 7:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please host the appropriately redacted letter and accompanying
documents you received on DropBox or Google Drive.
#Post#: 67207--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: b789
Date: April 15, 2025, 7:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can respond with the following to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC
yourself:
--- Quote ---
> [Date]
>
> DCB Legal Ltd
> Direct House
> Greenwood Drive
> Manor Park
> Runcorn
> WA7 1UG
>
> By email only: info@dcblegal.co.uk
>
> Subject: Response to your email dated [insert date] – VCS /
[Reference Number(s)] – Keeper Liability Not Applicable
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I write further to your email dated [insert date], and must
express astonishment at the level of misunderstanding and
procedural ineptitude it contains. I respond purely for the
benefit of the court, should this charade ever be escalated to
litigation.
>
> Let me be clear: I am the registered keeper, and at no stage
have I identified the driver. Yet, despite my prior
explanation—and the fact that the location in question is
Bristol Airport, land subject to statutory control under
byelaws—you persist in attempting to argue that I am liable as
the keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
Your failure to grasp such a fundamental legal point is,
frankly, embarrassing.
>
> 1. Airport Land Is Not “Relevant Land” – Keeper Liability Is
Irrelevant
>
> For avoidance of any further confusion (which appears
chronic), land governed by airport byelaws is excluded from the
definition of “relevant land” under Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
>
> You cannot hold a keeper liable.
>
> There is no grey area. This is basic statutory
interpretation—something one would reasonably expect a
litigation firm to understand before threatening court action.
Yet here we are, with your firm still insinuating that liability
passes to the keeper, as if PoFA applies where it manifestly
does not.
>
> The Keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver
to your client, an unregulated private parking company.
Moreover, there can be no presumption or inference that the
Keeper was the driver, as already confirmed in persuasive
appellate case law—including your own client’s loss in Vehicle
Control Services Ltd v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C]. To continue
suggesting otherwise demonstrates either wilful ignorance or a
staggering level of incompetence.
>
> 2. Misrepresentation of the Law – Baseless ‘Balance of
Probabilities’ Argument
>
> Your assertion that I am liable “on the balance of
probabilities” because I did not name the driver is both legally
baseless and intellectually lazy.
>
> As already explained above, PoFA does not apply to airport
land. In such cases, where there is no statutory mechanism for
transferring liability from driver to keeper, your client must
prove as a matter of fact that I was the driver. There is no
legal presumption, and the Keeper is under no obligation to
assist a private firm by naming the driver.
>
> Your reliance on inference in the absence of evidence is a
misrepresentation of the applicable legal test. In the
persuasive appellate case of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v
Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], HHJ Gargan made clear at paragraph
35.3:
>
> [indent]“It is consistent with the appropriate probability
analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper,
it does not mean on balance of probability they were driving on
this occasion, because one simply cannot tell.”[/indent]
>
> The judge was unambiguous: unless the Claimant can clearly and
specifically evidence that the defendant was the driver, no such
inference can be drawn.
>
> Your continued reliance on this flawed reasoning is not only
legally incorrect—it is professionally embarrassing. To attempt
to manufacture liability through inference where none exists,
and in direct contradiction to established and persuasive
appellate authority, falls well below the standards expected of
regulated legal practitioners.
>
> Should you persist in advancing this fiction, I will bring it
to the court’s attention and will include it in my formal
complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, highlighting
your firm’s apparent willingness to misstate the law and pursue
claims without proper legal foundation.
>
> 3. DVLA Data Misuse – Formal Complaints Imminent
>
> Your client obtained my keeper data via the DVLA’s KADOE
contract, which strictly prohibits use of that data where PoFA
is not applicable and where the keeper cannot be held liable.
>
> Continued use of that data in pursuit of an unenforceable
claim is not only unlawful but in breach of the KADOE contract
and the UK GDPR.
>
> Should this baseless pursuit continue, I will not hesitate to
escalate matters to:
>
> The DVLA, for breach of the KADOE terms; and
> The Information Commissioner’s Office, for unlawful processing
of personal data.
>
> 4. Fake Add-Ons – Abuse of Process
>
> Your attempt to inflate the claim with three separate £70
“debt recovery” charges is equally absurd. The added sums
represent no genuine loss, nor are they contractually agreed.
>
> This exact conduct was condemned by the courts in Britannia
Parking v Semark-Jullien (2020), where such practices were found
to be an abuse of process. Adding these sums not only displays a
complete lack of legal rigour, but if a claim is issued
including them, I will seek summary judgment or strike-out, and
pursue costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct.
>
> 5. Pre-Action Protocol – Your Response Is Woefully
Non-Compliant
>
> Despite my reasoned and structured response, your firm has
simply repeated your client’s unmeritorious position and
cherry-picked which questions you deemed “proportionate.” That
is not how the Pre-Action Protocol works.
>
> Paragraph 6(a) of the Protocol requires a full and considered
reply to every substantive point raised. Your
approach—consisting largely of automated bluster and evidence
you believe supports your client—falls well short of what the
court will expect.
>
> 6. Final Position
>
> Let me be crystal clear: any further attempt to pursue me, as
the keeper, for a purported contravention on non-relevant land,
will be taken as evidence of:
>
> [indent]• A deliberate abuse of process;
> • A flagrant misuse of DVLA data; and
> • A breach of the SRA Principles, notably:
>
> [indent]• Principle 1: Upholding the rule of law
> • Principle 4: Acting with honesty
> • Principle 5: Acting with integrity
> • Principle 7: Acting in the best interests of each
client[/indent][/indent]
>
> Should your firm be foolish enough to escalate this to court,
I will include this and all previous correspondence in my
witness statement, and will formally request that the court
issue a finding of unreasonable behaviour against your client,
and against you as their representatives.
>
> I strongly suggest that you now take competent legal advice
before humiliating yourselves and your client further.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
> Registered Keeper – Not Liable
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 10
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page