DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 59775--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL notice of intended legal action
DIR By: Sue786
Date: February 26, 2025, 10:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I have now received the much dreaded Letter of claim 😩,
i would really appreciate any advice i can get please 🙏
Thanks in advance
Sue
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 59790--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL notice of intended legal action
DIR By: b789
Date: February 26, 2025, 12:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You can respond to it with the following or you can simply
ignore it and wait for the inevitable N1SDT Claim Form that will
eventually follow:
--- Quote ---
> DCB Legal Ltd
> Direct House
> Greenwood Drive
> Manor Park
> Runcorn
> Cheshire
> WA7 1UG
>
> By email to: info@dcblegal.co.uk
>
> [Date]
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Re: Letter of Claim dated 20th February 2025
>
> I refer to your Letter of Claim.
>
> I confirm that my address for service at this time is as
follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from
your records to ensure compliance with data protection
obligations:
>
> [YOUR ADDRESS]
>
> Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court
proceedings will be robustly defended.
>
> I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive
and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the
principles established by the Government, who described such
practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain
from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding
this issue.
>
> Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require
specific answers to the following questions:
>
> [indent]1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe
as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or
inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I,
as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT
liability.
>
> 2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge
Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of
contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported
parking contract?[/indent]
>
> I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions
with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the
implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while
simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client
– with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations
due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions
about the legality and ethics of your practices.
>
> I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this
matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues
will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust
defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> 
[YOUR NAME]
--- End Quote ---
Save as a PDF file and attach to an email addressed to
info@dcblegal.co.uk and also CC in yourself.[/quote]
#Post#: 59796--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL notice of intended legal action
DIR By: Sue786
Date: February 26, 2025, 1:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much! I will email this over to them now and wait
for their reply
Thank you
#Post#: 62343--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL notice of intended legal action
DIR By: Sue786
Date: March 13, 2025, 11:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good afternoon,
I have received a reply from my email today, please see below,
help and advise would be greatly appreciated 🙏
We write in response to your correspondence received in our
office dated 28/02/2025.
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 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. To
confirm your Parking Charge was issued due to ‘NO Valid Payment
Permit Was Purchased.’
On each occasion our Client applied to the DVLA for the details
of the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle. Your name and address
of 71 Cranston Close were provided. Our Client therefore issued
correspondence to you at that address. It is your
responsibility, as the Registered Keeper, to ensure the DVLA is
kept up to date with your current address at all times. Please
find attached document which supports this statement.
In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of
Practice, where the parking charge becomes overdue and before
Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be added
for the debt recovery fees. The correct recovery fees have been
added and will not be removed. It would have been made clear in
the terms and conditions set out in the signs that additional
enforcement costs may be incurred in the event of non-payment.
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 recover the
debt. 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 recovery action so the amount due would not have increased.
The amount owed is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred
in managing the parking location to ensure compliance with the
clearly displayed terms and conditions. However, in Parking Eye
Ltd v Beavis, it was found, both at County Court and Court of
Appeal level, that appealing a parking charge on the basis that
the amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss is, in fact,
not a successful legal defence.
The HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration manual’ (VATSC06140),
confirmed that parking charge notices falls out of the scope of
VAT.
You now have 30 days from the date of this email/letter to make
payment of £170.00. 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: 20-24-09
Account Number: 60964441
You must quote the correct case reference (120673.81818D) 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.
We would ask that you kindly furnish us with your most up to
date telephone number, this can be emailed to us at
info@dcblegal.co.uk.
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,
Amy Wibberley
DCB Legal Ltd
Tel: 0203 838 7038 | DX 23457 Runcorn
dcblegal.co.uk | Twitter | Linkedin | Facebook
#Post#: 62367--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL notice of intended legal action
DIR By: b789
Date: March 13, 2025, 1:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Respond with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sirs,
>
> I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated [DATE]. However,
your response fails to properly address the key points raised in
my previous correspondence. Specifically, you have failed to
answer two fundamental questions under the Pre-Action Protocol
for Debt Claims.
>
> In my previous letter, I asked the following questions:
>
> [indent]1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe
as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or
inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I,
as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT
liability.
>
> 2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge
Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of
contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported
parking contract?[/indent]
>
> Your failure to answer these questions is a clear breach of
the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. I require full and
clear responses to these questions within 14 days. If you fail
to engage properly, this will be brought to the attention of the
court, and I will seek costs for unreasonable conduct.
>
> You continue to claim an additional £70, yet the Supreme Court
in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 made it clear that the
parking charge itself covers all operational and enforcement
costs. Paragraph 98 of Beavis states that the parking charge is
set at a level to cover the costs of managing the scheme and to
make a profit. Paragraph 100 further confirms that the charge
was set at a level to ensure financial viability and
enforcement. This confirms that the parking charge itself
already includes the costs of running the scheme, including debt
recovery. Adding a further £70 is an attempt at double recovery
and is unlawful.
>
> You have also referenced the BPA Code of Practice but not
referenced which version applies. Nowhere in any of the versions
of the BPA CoP or the new Single Code of Practice does it say
that the £70 charge is automatically justified. The Code does
not override case law, and it does not exempt you from having to
prove that the £70 reflects an actual and reasonable cost
incurred. If this charge represents a genuine cost, I require a
full breakdown of what it covers.
>
> County Court rulings have consistently struck out this
additional charge as an abuse of process. In Britannia Parking v
Semark-Jullien (Southampton, 11/11/19, F0HM9E9Z), the court
ruled that it was an abuse of process to add an additional sum
to the parking charge. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson
(Bradford, 02/07/20, G4QZ465V), the court again ruled that the
claim was tainted by an additional charge that should not have
been added. If you proceed with a claim including this charge, I
will apply for a strike-out and costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
>
> The £70 charge also breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph 6 of the Act states that any term
requiring a consumer to pay a disproportionately high sum in
compensation is unfair and unenforceable. You have failed to
provide any cost breakdown to justify this sum. A blanket £70
charge is neither a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor a
proportionate expense.
>
> The Civil Procedure Rules also do not allow recovery of debt
collection costs in the Small Claims Track. CPR 27.14(2) makes
it clear that these costs are not recoverable. Any attempt to
claim them as part of the principal sum is unlawful.
>
> Furthermore, the Government’s Impact Assessment for the
Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 found that the
average cost of debt recovery per claim (not per PCN) was less
than £9. This considers that most debt recovery firms operate on
a no-win, no-fee basis. Your client’s claim that £70 is a
reasonable cost is therefore false.
>
> Within 14 days, I require clear answers to my original two
questions regarding the nature of the £70 charge and the legal
basis of the PCN. I also require a full breakdown of the £70
charge, including whether it includes VAT, and if so, why I am
being charged your client’s VAT liability. Additionally, you
must provide evidence that the £70 charge was clearly stated in
the contractual signage at the location.
>
> Failure to provide this information will be considered a lack
of transparency and may be used in my defence should this matter
proceed to court. If you commence proceedings without addressing
these issues, I will apply for a strike-out under CPR 3.4(2)(a)
and (b) on the grounds that you have failed to comply with the
Pre-Action Protocol and that the claim is tainted by an abuse of
process.
>
> I suggest you review Beavis, the various versions of the BPA
CoP and the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, and
recent County Court rulings before issuing any claim.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
> [Your Address]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 62368--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL notice of intended legal action
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 13, 2025, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
DCB Legal get a lot of stick on this forum, but if any of their
staff ever get bored of life in Runcorn, they could have a
glittering career in politics. They've got question dodging
nailed.
#Post#: 62389--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL notice of intended legal action
DIR By: Sue786
Date: March 13, 2025, 2:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much for your help i will send this over right away
🙏
#Post#: 67591--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL notice of intended legal action
DIR By: Sue786
Date: April 17, 2025, 1:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good evening, i have now received another letter by post and
this time a notice of enforcement.
Please see attached
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 67596--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL notice of intended legal action
DIR By: b789
Date: April 17, 2025, 2:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That better has absolutely nothing to do with the ECP PCN we are
dealing with.
It appear to be for a completely different case involving a
council issued PCN issued under statutory law.
I suggest you get yourself sorted as there are two completely
separate issues here and we are only dealing with the ECP PCN.
#Post#: 67606--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL notice of intended legal action
DIR By: Sue786
Date: April 17, 2025, 4:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh gosh, i have had a very long day, this car was sold and
that’s the new keepers ticket i shall forward them his details
Sorry for wasting your time
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page