DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 115365--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Overstay at Moto Burton Services Kendal 22/02/2025
DIR By: marcogolfo
Date: April 8, 2026, 12:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve received the attached Letter of Claim from DCB Legal
relating to an alleged overstay at a motorway service area.
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/N2Gr0HRZ/IMG-1779-back-redacted.jpg
HTML https://postimg.cc/N2Gr0HRZ
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/WqpJ4kMV/IMG-1779-redacted.jpg
HTML https://postimg.cc/WqpJ4kMV
The overstay is stated as 16 minutes. I was a genuine customer
on site (food and drink purchase) and have proof of that
transaction.
I appealed to the parking operator and then to POPLA, both of
which were rejected. I also contacted the service station
directly to try and resolve it, but they said they couldn’t
assist as parking is handled by a third party.
On the day in question I was travelling with a passenger who has
a formal diagnosis of autism and ADHD, and there were long
queues at the service station, which meant the stop took longer
than expected.
The current demand is £170 and threatens court proceedings.
I’ve had a read through similar threads but would appreciate
views on what the best next step is at this stage
Thank you in advance
I aim to respond with:
Dear Sirs,
I refer to your Letter of Claim dated 26 March 2026.
It is admitted that I was the driver on the material date. The
alleged debt is denied in full and no liability is accepted.
This letter constitutes my formal response pursuant to the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. I will not be completing
your standard reply forms.
Liability
Your client is put to strict proof of its claim.
At the material time, I was a genuine paying customer. Any
alleged overstay was minor and arose in circumstances requiring
reasonable flexibility in time on site.
In those circumstances, the charge is neither commercially
justified nor proportionate and is, in substance, penal.
Reliance on ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis is misplaced.
Equality Act 2010
At the material time, I was accompanied by a passenger with a
formal diagnosis of autism and ADHD, both of which are
disabilities within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
The rigid enforcement of time limits, without apparent
consideration of those circumstances, represents a failure to
make reasonable adjustments. This will be relied upon.
Quantum
The additional £70 is disputed and not recoverable.
See Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson.
Information
Your Letter of Claim does not comply with paragraph 3.1 of the
Protocol. Please provide:
Full particulars of the claim
The evidence relied upon
Copies of the signage
Landowner authority
A breakdown of the sum claimed
Next steps
This matter must be placed on hold for 30 days.
Conclusion
The claim is denied.
Your client is invited to reconsider its position.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 123339--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Overstay at Moto Burton Services Kendal 22/02/2025
DIR By: marcogolfo
Date: June 29, 2026, 6:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I didn't ever receive any help from anyone on here in response
to this :(
I sent the letter anyway and have now received a reply
#Post#: 123340--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Overstay at Moto Burton Services Kendal 22/02/2025
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 30, 2026, 12:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please post up the reply.
#Post#: 123598--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Overstay at Moto Burton Services Kendal 22/02/2025
DIR By: marcogolfo
Date: July 2, 2026, 9:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear ######
We write in response to your correspondence received in our
office dated 12 April 2026.
We now respond to the same as follows.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Please note the timeframe in which to appeal the Parking Charge
has expired. You were given the opportunity to lodge an appeal
when the initial Notice was issued to you. Given that the case
has been escalate to this firm for recovery action, the time to
appeal has now elapsed and payment of the PC is now required.
WITHOUT PREJDUICE
Notwithstanding the above, our Client would be willing to accept
£100 in full and final settlement of this matter.
Failure to make payment within 30 days from the date of this
email may 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: ######
Account Number: #########
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.
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,
#####
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page