Civil Enforcement Ltd & DCBL

[ecalid]

Good afternoon all, I hope you are all well.

By way of background, I have recently moved into a new area having managed to get on the property ladder and was not completely aware of my new surroundings. After picking up an item I brought from FB marketplace I pulled over on double yellow lines to make a phone call. My conscience got the better of me as I had noticed a CCTV camera and thought it could possibly be ANPR and I decided to move from the double yellows into an adjacent car park. I never go out of the car and after finishing my phone call, left the car park without any knowledge of what was about to happen.

A few weeks later I get the demand letter from CEL, inviting me to pay the sum of approx £70 for entering their 'Private Land'; citing a breach of terms and conditions as apparently stipulated on the signs which were allegedly clear to see around the car park.

I haven't made contact with CEL or DCBL but I have been back to the car park in question to take some photo's. I've since found that it is apparently private land which you must pay upon entry which I presume is to the benefit of the surrounding shops.

However, there are some issues with the car park and the notices:

1. The 'Private Land' sign indicated on entry to the car park is only facing traffic entering from the main road. I entered the car park from the road which leads up towards the main road so could not identify any sign indicating private land on approach. When I moved into the car park from the double yellow lines on the right of the road, the sign must have been obscured by the roof of my car.

2. Where I parked (in front of the pushbike bars), there were no signs or anything to indicate that I had entered private land. I could not see any signs with the prescribed terms. (I've marked out in a yellow box in the pictures where I parked)

3. When I finished the phone call and left the car park, I had already breached the alleged term of 'Payment within 15 minutes of arrival', and as I had never got out of my car, I didn't see any of the signs which were sparingly placed around the car park.

4. It is not clear whether the 'Payment within 15 minutes of arrival' term is also a grace period. In other words even if I had used the car park to turn around, I was captured.


I'm slightly annoyed at myself for not taking in my surroundings better, however I am completely annoyed at CEL as this is just a small town and a small car park which I didn't even use for the benefit of the shops surrounding it. It was a Sunday and they were all closed. However, I am determined that I am not at fault and intend to fight this all the way. I recently received the 'Final Notice' from DCBL, as part of the pre action protocol I presume, before they initiate court action.

I'm considering putting in a DSAR to CEL just to see if any irregularities pop up. There is the slight possibility that I could await the claim form and make an application to strike out their claim based on the information I have as I suspect their particulars will be wolly at best, but then I am thinking that I should go for disclosure, CPR 31.6 I believe? I know 31.14 is particularly helpful with regards to consumer credit but this is slightly different to what I'm use to; It's been a while since I've had to go down this route, so any help you guys could provide would be brilliant.


Thanks in advance.

[ecalid]

[ecalid]

[ecalid]

Better quality terms

[des8]

Please post up the original NTK received from CEL
Remove identifying details, but leave in all dates and times

Is it Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited. or DCB Legal Ltd who have contacted you?

[ecalid]

Thanks des8 for your reply.

Yes it is Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited.

Please see the letters below.

[des8]

please, could you post up the reverse of the NTK?

[ecalid]

please, could you post up the reverse of the NTK?

I don't have the original document anymore as I think it accidentally got binned.

As far as I am aware though, the reverse is just instructions on how to pay.

[des8]

Send SAR to CEL then, and you should get a full copy of NTK.

If you are correct the reverse is just instructions on how to pay, then that notice does not comply with POFA 2012 and can be disputed.
Just make sure you do not identify the driver

[ecalid]

Send SAR to CEL then, and you should get a full copy of NTK.

If you are correct the reverse is just instructions on how to pay, then that notice does not comply with POFA 2012 and can be disputed.
Just make sure you do not identify the driver

That's great news. It looks like I'll be receiving a claim form shortly, so is this something that I need to do prior to court action, in which I can include into my defence? Is the legislation that if there is an ongoing dispute with POFA then the claim can be stayed?

From what I can gather, the POFA 2012 means that the creditor is attempting to collect money from the driver, whereas they should only be attempting to collect from the keeper, and they haven't attempted to clear up this ambiguity. I guess the clinch here is how can they claim against the keeper without actual knowledge of the driver.

Could you elaborate on this for me?

Additionally, it is likely that in requesting DSAR, they are going to want a copy of my drivers licence or passport for verification, in giving them these details, am I likely to open a can of worms on myself?

[R0b]

From what I can gather, the POFA 2012 means that the creditor is attempting to collect money from the driver, whereas they should only be attempting to collect from the keeper, and they haven't attempted to clear up this ambiguity. I guess the clinch here is how can they claim against the keeper without actual knowledge of the driver.

POFA imposes a strictly liability for the registered keeper to pay the parking charge if the creditor does not know the identity of the defendant. Think of it a bit like a speeding fine, you either identify the driver or the police will prosecute the registered keeper. The reason why POFA came into force was because of the difficulties of identifiying the driver at the time of the incident and then proving that in court. The burden of proof is on them to show you were driving the vehicle at the time but unless they have a photo of you sitting in the driver's seat, that's going to be difficult to achieve.

Additionally, it is likely that in requesting DSAR, they are going to want a copy of my drivers licence or passport for verification, in giving them these details, am I likely to open a can of worms on myself?

You might find the ICO guidance useful (link here) but in short, they shouldn't be asking for your formal identification although many companies do that as a matter of policy regardless of the type of information they have. What I would normally do is supply information that the data controller will have on their file to be able to identify me and if the information is very little, then I might provide a utility bill but would avoid formal identification where possible.

In the ICO guidance it does say this:

You should also not request formal identification documents unless necessary. First you should think about other reasonable and proportionate ways you can verify an individual’s identity. You may already have verification measures in place which you can use, for example a username and password.

For something like parking tickets, you could supply a copy of the PCN letter you received together with a utility bill which should be sufficient or if you paid for a ticket using a mobile app then provide the invoice details, reference number, you may want to supply the last 4 digits of the bank card that was used together with the name of the bank that issued the card - all of which are valid forms of identification. If they ask for a passport or driving licence then you may want to challenge that and ask why is it necessary for them to require a form of photo identification when they do not have a copy of your driving licence or passport information on file and by requesting that information they are then processing more information than what they already had on their system.

Of course, if they insist on a photo ID then you either supply them with the requested information or you raise a complaint to the ICO or start legal action for breach of their obligations to comply with a SAR. I have a template SAR which is a little more detailed than the template on here if you would like to see an alternative example.

[des8]

Why do you think a claim will be filed shortly? DCBL can't initiate court action.
Any court action will be started by CEL, or more likely DCBLegal, and before that they need to follow a protocol.

Just send a SAR (template in SHORTCUTS panel on right)

POFA allows the parking company to transfer liability for a parking charge from the driver to the keeper.
If they don't comply with the terms of POFA they cannot do this and can only claim from the driver
You are under no obligation to identify the driver, so without that info they are stuffed,
So do not identify the driver, nor give information from which the driver's identity can be infer

I'm slow so crossed with R0b above

[ecalid]

Thanks for this breakdown R0b .

I'm slightly confused, and I don't think this is your fault at all; you mention strict liability and then burden of proof in the same paragraph. I can't figure out of you meant that there 'was' a burden of proof; retrospectively before POFA 2012, or the burden remains on the claimant to identify the driver.

If there is still a burden on the claimant then surely, just denying being the driver and showing the court a insurance schedule with all the named drivers should cause a claim to be struck out?

If there is no burden, then what are my logical defences? As I am convinced lack of adequate signage to enter into contract is the way to go?


Thanks in advance.

[ecalid]

Why do you think a claim will be filed shortly? DCBL can't initiate court action.
Any court action will be started by CEL, or more likely DCBLegal, and before that they need to follow a protocol.

Just send a SAR (template in SHORTCUTS panel on right)

POFA allows the parking company to transfer liability for a parking charge from the driver to the keeper.
If they don't comply with the terms of POFA they cannot do this and can only claim from the driver
You are under no obligation to identify the driver, so without that info they are stuffed,
So do not identify the driver, nor give information from which the driver's identity can be infer

I'm slow so crossed with R0b above

Thanks for your reply des8

"Just send a SAR (template in SHORTCUTS panel on right)"

Thanks for this, I have just quickly sent a small DSAR:

To whom it may concern,

I do not know or acknowledge the driver of this vehicle in which your correspondence refers. In reference to your correspondence, I will not be making any payment whatsoever so either yourselves or DCBL.

Please consider this email as a formal request for data under GDPR, namely Article 15 which permits subjects to request full copies of their data.


By sending correspondence to the person at the address in your correspondence, you confirm that I am the data subject in which this information pertains. In this case I see no real reason to provide you with any further identification; in this regard, should you wish, you may furnish me with this data by posting the requested data to the address you have on file.

Please reply to this email or post to the address you have on file; all correspondence sent to all recipients regarding cases relating to the keeper you have for the vehicle XXXXXX

You should deliver this information within the 1 months stipulated timeframe. Please note that failure to comply with this request beyond the stipulated timeframe will result in a complaint being issued to the ICO.

Have a nice day.


"POFA allows the parking company to transfer liability for a parking charge from the driver to the keeper."
So as they have firstly issued a notice to keeper, have they then jumped the gun with regards to POFA 2012, should I have received a notice to driver first?

If they then issue a notice to driver afterwards, will this then make it enforceable?

"Why do you think a claim will be filed shortly? DCBL can't initiate court action.
Any court action will be started by CEL, or more likely DCBLegal, and before that they need to follow a protocol."
From what I can gather, CEL have a track record of issuing claims. My apologies as I should have made it clear that it would likely be DCBL recommending that CEL issue the claim.

With regards to protocol, have CEL/DCBL then not yet complied with pre-action protocol by mandating this to DCBL? If not, I'm assuming I'll probably get a another letter titled 'Before court action' or words to that effect from whoever they mandate to take up the claim.

[des8]

deleted