DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 72047--------------------------------------------------
PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: markeman
Date: May 18, 2025, 9:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi folks - the situation..
- Parked in multi-story private car park, taking multiple 8-9yo
kids to a party, purchased parking up front.
- PCN received via post to keeper for £100 (£60 if paid now). I
appealed on basis I believed I had purchased a valid parking
permit and included copy of credit card statement with payment
transaction.
- Appeal rejected. "T&C of parking are clearly stated on signs
prominently displayed in this area. Signage on site is clear in
stating payment must be made at the end of your stay, this is to
ensure the correct fee is made payable. A payment of £2.00
covers parking for up to 2 hours only." (I underestimated the
time and exited approx 20mins after the end of the 2 hours I
purchased).
- I was given a POPLA code for further appeal but it was around
year end, things were busy and I didn't appeal in time
- Since then I have received 1 letter every month for the last 4
months from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd for the increased
amount of £170
- During that period I sent email correspondence to DCBL and
BaySentry (collections@dcbltd.com; Appeals@baysentry.co.uk;
enquiries@baysentry.co.uk). I pointed out BaySenty's original
rejection included new information not originally disclosed
(that my payment wasn't enough) and requested they send me the
T&Cs on the signage (info not accessible without entering car
park again), the payment rate that was applicable for my stay
and a calculation of my outstanding balance so that I can pay
the difference. I received an automated reply that BaySentry
received my emails but never a response to my letter. DCBL did
reply only to say they are collecting debt.
- I've now received a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal with added
note of interest accruing at 8% above base rate.
Many thanks in advance for thoughts and steer on next steps from
the experts here!
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 72060--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: b789
Date: May 18, 2025, 10:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear... SNAFU.
I am assuming that the drivers identity has been blabbed, when
there was no legal obligation to do so.
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) states that they are relaying on
paragraph 8(2)(b) of PoFA to hold the Keeper liable. They can
only rely on PoFA paragraph 8 if they have have previously
issued a windscreen Notice to Driver (NtD) under PoFA paragraph
7. Was there an NtD affixed to the vehicle?
An NtK cannot be issued under PoFA paragraph 8 less than 28 days
after the date of the alleged contravention, or later than 56
days after it. This NtK has been issued only 10 days after the
date of the alleged contravention.
However, all that was blown out the window when the Keeper
identified as the driver simply by using "I did this or that"
rather than referring to the driver in the third person with
"the driver did this or that".
Never mind. You still have a saving grace which is that they are
using the incompetents at DCB Legal to file a claim.
As long as you follow the advice from now and don't deviate, you
can guarantee with greater than 99% certainty, that the claim,
which will definitely be filed, will eventually be either struck
out or discontinued.
For now, I advise you to respond to the Letter of Claim (LoC) by
email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself, with the
following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim. Your ref: [insert
their ref no.]
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the
claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places
reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
>
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to
identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal
presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any
particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as
per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yvxek3kfwtb3qent3lj6y/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward-H0KF6C9C.pdf?rlkey=niecohfdtj1n1ysh5prbsp52p&e=1&dl=0.
>
> If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me
liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. The initial Notice
to Keeper was not received, as I had moved address and the V5C
logbook had not yet been updated with the DVLA at the time of
the alleged contravention. As such, no PoFA-compliant NtK was
served within the timeframes required by paragraph 9(5) of the
Act. Even if your client were to issue or re-send a copy now, it
would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy
the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to
establish keeper liability.
>
> As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would
be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a
claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and
seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and
vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)
>
> Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the
requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims
(paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice
Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you
must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the
documents/information that the protocol now requires your client
to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without
complying with that protocol.
>
> As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the
requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action
Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator
of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and
your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind
all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim.
Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the
claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to
enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate
a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring
the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.
It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a
consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete
ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the
Pre-Action Protocol.
>
> I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim
that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the
Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a
formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol.
Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by
sending me the following information/documents:
>
> [indent]1. An explanation of the cause of action
> 2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
> 3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of
POFA 2012
> 4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is
claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed
arose and have been calculated
> 5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the
date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and
provide to me a copy of that contract.
> 6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs
showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said
contract.
> 7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
> 8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under
which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by
the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
> 9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
> 10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of
font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged
contravention.
> 11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any
interest and administrative or other charges added
> 12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what
is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett
or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why
I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
> 13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this
damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for
parking?[/indent]
>
> I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs
6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order
to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
>
> If your client does not provide me with this information then
I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb
Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch),
Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part
20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church
Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann
Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions
on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant
to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice
Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
>
> Until your client has complied with its obligations and
provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to
the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it,
and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court
time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client
do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph
15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this
information is provided.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your name]
--- End Quote ---
Remember, follow the advice and you won't be paying a penny to
BaySentry. Make sure you show us any response and the N1SDT
Claim Form when it arrives. Redact only your personal details,
Claim number and MCOL password. Leave ALL dates and times
showing.
#Post#: 72080--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: markeman
Date: May 18, 2025, 12:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No windscreen NtD was issued, the PCN letter was first
notification received. Sadly, you are correct about driver and
keeper identity having been blabbed already.. consider me now
educated!!
Thank you very much for the speedy and detailed response, I'll
proceed as you advise. Just before I do, the LoC states "you
should either make payment [...] or complete the Reply Form and
financial statement" - I assume no concerns if I skip this part
and go direct via email because you're essentially saying I
can't formally respond to the LoC until they've provided
sufficient information, right?
#Post#: 72086--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: b789
Date: May 18, 2025, 2:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Don’t overthink this. You do not use any of the forms they
included with the LoC. You do not have to pay anything. Just
because some private company says you must pay something, why do
you imagine that it has any lawful weight behind it?
You, the known Keeper, were issued with a speculative invoice
from an unregulated private parking company for an alleged
breach of contract by an unknown driver. You wrongly engaged
with them as the known Keeper when they had no idea who the
liable entity was. The unknown driver is always liable and they
can only transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known
Keeper if they fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA...
or the known Keeper tells them, inadvertently or otherwise.
Whilst that element of defence has gone, if you follow the
advice, this will never reach a hearing in court. You are
dealing with scammers who will push this to litigation in the
hope that you are low hanging fruit on the gullible tree and
will eventually pay up out of ignorance and fear.
#Post#: 72088--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: markeman
Date: May 18, 2025, 2:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can't argue with that. Email sent, will keep you posted..
#Post#: 75345--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: markeman
Date: June 8, 2025, 6:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
First correspondence from DCB Legal below. Assume no reason not
to respond with requested details?
--- Quote ---
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> We thank you for your recent email.
>
> We take the confidentiality of our matters very seriously and
as a result, we ask you to answer the following security
questions in full before we can correspond with you via email.
>
> Please could you confirm
> •
> •
> •
>
> By responding to this email, you consent for us to use this
email address for communication in relation to your case, this
may contain information that is personal to you. When
communicating by email, please remember that it may be
‘unsecure’. If at any time, you no longer wish for your personal
information to be communicated by email, or you no longer have
access to this mailbox, please notify us immediately.
>
> Should you prefer to discuss this matter on the telephone,
please do not hesitate to contact us on xxx.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 75353--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: b789
Date: June 8, 2025, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No reason not to give them that info if you want receive any
communication by email rather than only by post.
#Post#: 77167--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: markeman
Date: June 19, 2025, 7:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sharing the latest correspondence from our friends at DCB Legal
below. The evidence referenced as attached is the same they
previously provided via letters (photos of the vehicle entering
/ exiting the car park; copy of original Parking Charge letter;
copy of my original appeal letter and their response).
--- Quote ---
>
> We write in response to your correspondence received in our
office on 23rd May 2025.
>
> It is our position that the Letter of Claim (LOC) is compliant
with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (the Protocol). The
LOC provides adequate information for you to identify the debt
that our Client is seeking to recover.
>
> However, as per your request, please find attached the
evidence we hold concerning the Parking Charge issued on 8th
November 2024. If there are any documents that you have
requested, but that are not enclosed with this email, it is
because we have deemed the request to be disproportionate and/or
not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute.
>
> 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.
>
> Please note, the HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration manual’
(VATSC06140), which was last updated on 02 September 2020,
confirmed that Parking Charges fall out of the scope of VAT.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, DCB Legal have now been instructed
to pursue you as all previous attempts to resolve the matter
have been unsuccessful.
>
> You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make
payment of the outstanding balance 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: -
> •
> •
> •
>
> 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 xx to make
payment over the telephone or online at
HTML https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 77206--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: b789
Date: June 19, 2025, 12:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just wait for the claim. However, you can also report DCB Legal
to the SRA. Just email the following to report@sra.org.ukand CC
in yourself:
--- Quote ---
> To: report@sra.org.uk
>
> Subject: Complaint Regarding DCB Legal Ltd – Misleading and
Non-Compliant Pre-Action Conduct
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> I am writing to raise concerns regarding the conduct of DCB
Legal Ltd (SRA ID: 638291) in relation to a Letter of Claim sent
to me on behalf of their client Bay Sentry Solutions Ltd,
reference number [insert reference number].
>
> Summary of Concern
>
> DCB Legal issued a Letter of Claim dated [insert date] which
purports to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims
(PAPDC). However, the letter fails to comply with multiple
provisions of the Protocol, including paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d),
5.1, and 5.2, and also breaches the Practice Direction –
Pre-Action Conduct paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c).
>
> I responded with a formal request for the information and
documentation required under the Protocol. DCB Legal replied on
[insert date], refusing to supply several key documents and
claiming, without basis, that my requests were
"disproportionate" or "not relevant". I enclose copies of the
Letter of Claim, my response, and DCB Legal's reply for your
review.
>
> Specific Issues
>
> [indent]1. Failure to Provide Sufficient Detail of the Claim
>
> The Letter of Claim does not specify whether the claim is
based on contract, trespass, or another cause of action, nor
does it clarify whether the client is pursuing me as the driver
or registered keeper. These omissions hinder any meaningful
engagement and breach the PAPDC.
>
> 2. Refusal to Provide Key Documents
>
> DCB Legal refused to supply:
>
> [indent]• The client’s contract with the landowner,
> • Evidence of signage at the time of the alleged
contravention,
> • An explanation of the legal basis for the £70 “debt
recovery” charge.[/indent]
>
> 3. Misleading Demand for Additional Charges
>
> DCB Legal has attempted to recover an added £70 which appears
to be for “debt recovery” or staff time. This charge is not
supported by the contract nor by established legal precedent
(Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson [2020]). No attempt has
been made to identify a valid legal basis for it.
>
> 4. Misleading Reference to VAT Treatment
>
> The response included an explanation referencing the VAT
Supply and Consideration Manual, implying that the PCN falls
outside the scope of VAT. This raises further questions about
whether the charge is being pleaded as contractual consideration
or as a penalty/damages, yet no clarity was provided.[/indent]
>
> Breaches of SRA Principles and Code of Conduct
>
> I believe this conduct breaches the following regulatory
standards:
>
> [indent]• SRA Principle 1: Failure to uphold the rule of law
by issuing defective legal threats.
> • SRA Principle 2: Undermining public trust in the profession
through misleading and incomplete correspondence.
> • SRA Principle 5: Acting without integrity, given DCB Legal’s
knowledge and experience in handling thousands of similar
parking claims.
> • SRA Code of Conduct Rule 1.2(d) and 11.1: Taking unfair
advantage of an individual by failing to comply with pre-action
obligations.[/indent]
>
> I request that the SRA review this matter and consider whether
DCB Legal’s conduct amounts to a breach of professional
obligations. This appears to be part of a wider pattern of
issuing non-compliant letters of claim, making misleading
representations about costs, and attempting to pressure
consumers into payment without proper legal grounding.
>
> Please let me know if any further information or documentation
is required.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your full name]
> [Your postal address]
> [Your email address]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83733--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: markeman
Date: August 1, 2025, 12:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi forum experts
The formal claims letter and N1SDT Claim Form have arrived,
attached for your reference. I have the response pack too, I
can share too if helpful. Look forward to hearing your wise
words.
Many thanks for the ongoing help.
[attachment deleted by admin]
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page