URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 65115--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCBL - G24 Ltd - 2019! homebase carpark BN3 7EX
   DIR By: b789
       Date: April 1, 2025, 4:48 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       You can just send it as an email. When you hear anything back,
       let us know.
       #Post#: 68283--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCBL - G24 Ltd - 2019! homebase carpark BN3 7EX
   DIR By: Paulfamhughes
       Date: April 23, 2025, 8:00 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Afternoon,
       I have now had a response please see below, one thing to add the
       address they refer to as my previous we still have access to &
       we do not recall ever receiving this letters & also back when we
       parked in these premises the signs all had different wording &
       times etc.
       We write in response to correspondence received in our office
       dated 31st March 2025.
       We have made a record that’s you dispute this parking charge. In
       addition to this we have made a record of your two questions:
       
       1.      Whether the debt recovery fee is inclusive of VAT
       
       2.      Whether the Parking Charge is being pleaded as damages
       or as consideration for parking.
       
       Each of the points raised in your correspondence are dealt with
       in turn below. We now respond to the same as follows
       Prior to the issue of the parking charge, our Client applied to
       the DVLA for the details of the Registered Keeper of the
       Vehicle. Your name and address (-------- )were provided. Our
       Client therefore correctly issued correspondence to you at that
       address. Having not received payment, address verification was
       carried out prior to the Letter of Claim being sent. Your new
       address was located and as such the Letter of Claim was issued
       to you at the traced address.
       Our client took reasonable steps to identify you and your
       correct address; but it is ultimately your responsibility as the
       vehicles registered keeper, to update the DVLA of any changes to
       your registered address through the use of your vehicles V5.
       The parking charge was not affixed to the vehicle because our
       client utilises Automatic Number Plate Recognition (“ANPR”)
       technology on the land where the parking charge was issued in
       order to manage the parking. This means that cameras capable of
       accurately recognising the vehicle registration number of a
       vehicle are constantly monitoring the entrance and exit to the
       land.  A photograph is taken of each vehicle as it enters and
       exits the land. Any vehicle found to have breached the terms of
       parking will be issued with a parking charge via the post.
       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
       breach in contract would make you liable for a parking charge.
       
       The terms and conditions on the signs stated 150 minutes maximum
       stay, or otherwise a parking charge notice would be issued. The
       vehicle was recorded on the land for 329 minuets on 16th
       September 2019, 179 minuets on 7th October 2019 and 355 minuets
       on 6th March 2020, which was at all material times in excess of
       the maximum time permitted. As such the parking charges was
       issued correctly.
       
       The Notices to Keeper were issued to you on 20th September 2019,
       13th October 2019 and 11th March 2020. 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.
       
       The Reminder Notices were issued to you upon receipt of the
       Notices to Keeper.  This notice reiterated that payment was
       outstanding and confirmed that legal action may be taken and
       additional costs incurred if the parking charge was not paid.
       
       In regard to the debt recovery fee of £70.00 being claimed, you
       would have been made aware of this through the signs available
       on the car parks site as previously mentioned above. This does
       not include any VAT. The HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration
       manual’ (VATSC06140), which was last updated on 02 September
       2020, confirmed that parking charge notices falls out of the
       scope of VAT. There is no requirement for a VAT invoice to be
       issued to you.
       Further to the above, in accordance with the appeal decision
       made on 29th July 2020 in Britannia Parking Group Ltd v
       Semark-Julien [2020] EW Mis 12 (CC), it is not correct to
       propose this claim should be struck out as an ‘abuse of process’
       due to the contractual costs claimed.
       With reference to the above, this parking charge is being
       pleaded as a breach of contract to which damages are payable in
       light of the matters raised in this correspondence.
       Pursuing a legally owed debt is not harassment. You may wish to
       seek independent legal advice in this regard. Our client
       pursuing this matter through the Small Claims Court is the
       correct course of action.
       DCB Legal have been instructed as all previous attempts to
       resolve the matter have been unsuccessful.
       You have 30 days from the date of this letter to pay the
       outstanding balance of £480.00. Failure to do so will result in
       a claim being issued against you without further notice.
       What are my next steps
       #Post#: 68291--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCBL - G24 Ltd - 2019! homebase carpark BN3 7EX
   DIR By: b789
       Date: April 23, 2025, 8:30 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Respond to DCB legal at info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself as
       follows:
       --- Quote ---
       > By email to: info@dcblegal.co.uk
       >
       > [Your Name]
       > [Your Address]
       >
       > [Date]
       >
       > Dear Sirs,
       >
       > Re: Letter of Claim dated 20th March 2025 | Your Response
       dated [Insert Date]
       >
       > I write further to your correspondence in reply to my email
       dated 31st March 2025.
       >
       > Regrettably, your response is entirely unsatisfactory and
       falls materially short of your obligations under the Pre-Action
       Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC).
       >
       > Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 5.1 and Annex 1 of
       the Protocol, your response to my legitimate and reasonable
       questions was vague, evasive, and non-specific. I remind you
       that one of the key aims of the PAPDC is to promote early
       engagement and exchange of information to avoid unnecessary
       litigation. Your failure to provide proper clarification
       frustrates that purpose and may amount to unreasonable conduct.
       >
       > In particular:
       >
       > 1. Debt Recovery Surcharge:
       >
       > [indent]You have failed to provide a specific contractual or
       legal basis for the £70 add-on per PCN. Simply stating that “you
       would have been made aware of this through signage” is both
       insufficient and misleading. You have also failed to identify
       whether this is a genuine third-party cost or simply a
       fictitious uplift to profit from litigation. The claim that this
       charge "does not include any VAT" fails to address whether it
       should, and whether it has been accounted for correctly in line
       with HMRC regulations, particularly if no third party has been
       paid.[/indent]
       >
       > 2. Nature of the Principal Sum:
       >
       > [indent]You confirm that the parking charges are pleaded as
       damages for breach of contract, yet elsewhere in the same letter
       you assert that a contract was formed by the act of parking,
       implying a fee for service. This internal inconsistency raises
       further questions as to the legal basis upon which the claim is
       brought.[/indent]
       >
       > 3. Chronology and Status of Notices:
       >
       > [indent]You assert that Notices to Keeper were sent between
       2019 and 2020. You also claim the reminders stated that legal
       action “may be taken.” However, you fail to explain the reason
       for the substantial delay between those notices and your current
       Letter of Claim in 2025, which appears designed to aggregate and
       inflate claims that should have been addressed
       contemporaneously.
       >
       > Moreover, you imply that this matter is now urgent, yet your
       client took no action for over four years. If a claim is issued,
       I reserve the right to raise arguments of abuse of process
       and/or cause of action estoppel.[/indent]
       >
       > 4. Inaccurate and Misleading Statements:
       >
       > [indent]Your letter contains inconsistencies regarding the
       quantum of the alleged debt. The fact that the three PCNs in
       question carry different base sums (£70 for one and £100 for
       two), yet all have a uniform £70 surcharge, further demonstrates
       the arbitrary nature of the added fees and the lack of
       transparency in your calculations.[/indent]
       >
       > Final Warning
       >
       > If you are unable or unwilling to provide a full and accurate
       response to the questions I have raised, in compliance with the
       PAPDC, I will have no hesitation in bringing this conduct to the
       attention of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The use
       of mendacious and boilerplate tactics to pressure payment of
       questionable debts raises serious concerns under the SRA
       Principles and Code of Conduct, in particular:
       >
       > [indent]• Principle 1: Upholding the rule of law and the
       proper administration of justice;
       > • Principle 2: Acting with integrity; and
       > • Principle 5: Acting in a way that encourages equality,
       diversity and inclusion, particularly in matters involving
       vulnerable parties or long-outstanding claims.[/indent]
       >
       > Please treat this letter as a formal notification that your
       response is non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol and that
       further failures may be referred to the appropriate regulatory
       authorities. I also reserve the right to present this
       correspondence to the court, should your client pursue
       proceedings.
       >
       > Yours faithfully,
       >
       > [Your Full Name]
       --- End Quote ---
       #Post#: 68297--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCBL - G24 Ltd - 2019! homebase carpark BN3 7EX
   DIR By: Paulfamhughes
       Date: April 23, 2025, 9:01 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you sorry in section 4 [/indent] do I need to put
       something in there?
       #Post#: 68301--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCBL - G24 Ltd - 2019! homebase carpark BN3 7EX
   DIR By: b789
       Date: April 23, 2025, 9:23 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       No.
       #Post#: 68303--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCBL - G24 Ltd - 2019! homebase carpark BN3 7EX
   DIR By: Paulfamhughes
       Date: April 23, 2025, 9:28 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Sorry so I leave that in?
       #Post#: 68307--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCBL - G24 Ltd - 2019! homebase carpark BN3 7EX
   DIR By: b789
       Date: April 23, 2025, 9:33 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Paulfamhughes link ---
       >
       > Sorry so I leave that in?
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Yes. I've corrected the formatting error that left the
       "[/indent]" in there. Just send it as it is now.
       #Post#: 68309--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCBL - G24 Ltd - 2019! homebase carpark BN3 7EX
   DIR By: Paulfamhughes
       Date: April 23, 2025, 9:41 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you I have replied to them now.  :)
       #Post#: 78745--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCBL - G24 Ltd - 2019! homebase carpark BN3 7EX
   DIR By: Paulfamhughes
       Date: June 29, 2025, 3:36 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Afternoon,
       It's been a around 2 months since the last reply you advised to
       send, is this standard practice for them to take this long? Or
       is it likely they have given up? Thank you
       #Post#: 78769--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCBL - G24 Ltd - 2019! homebase carpark BN3 7EX
   DIR By: b789
       Date: June 29, 2025, 7:05 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       They won't have given up but they have 6 years from the date of
       the alleged contravention to submit a claim. Just get on with
       your life and worry about anything when it comes.
       *****************************************************
       Page 2 of 5
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page