Receiving legal letters claiming unpaid PCN payments after 4 years has passed

[Redeye]

Hello,

The registered keeper has received two letters (see attached) from DCB legal claiming 5 x PCN payments from 2016.

I presume the best place to start is reply requesting more evidence, but wanted to see if anyone had any advice as to whether there is a better approach that might nip it in the bud quickly?

Many thanks in advance

R

[ostell]

The letter talks a about the PCNs in the schedule. Did they send you copies?

if not then a letter demanding copies of all documents that they intend to rely on in court to reduce the differences between you, as expected by the courts. You expect these by return and in any case within 7 days.

you also send a SAR to the parking company requesting all documents pertaining to you and car with VRM xxx x

[Redeye]

The letter talks a about the PCNs in the schedule. Did they send you copies?

if not then a letter demanding copies of all documents that they intend to rely on in court to reduce the differences between you, as expected by the courts. You expect these by return and in any case within 7 days.

you also send a SAR to the parking company requesting all documents pertaining to you and car with VRM xxx x

Great thanks

[Redeye]

Ok, so they've sent the copies now. I've attached one here of which I have 4 the same referencing different dates. In case the attachment is too small I have pasted the text below...

This was a company van although the keeper at the time, his name was on the V5 above the company's name & address. Not sure if this makes any difference?

The driver of the above vehicle is liable for a Parking Charge in the above
amount which, at the date of this notice, remains unpaid in full and for
which the Balance Due remains outstanding.
This charge relates to the period of parking specified above, the charge
having been incurred for the reason(s) stated and liability for the same
having been brought to the attention of the driver by clear signage in
and around ........SITE NAME ONLY........ At the time of parking.
Payment is now required in the sum of £100.

We, the above named company, are the creditor. At the time of this
notice we do not know both the name of the driver and a current
address for service for the driver and as the registered keeper of the
vehicle.

We have requested the keeper details from the Driver and Vehicle
Licensing Agency (DVLA) applying reasonable cause with the intention of
pursuing this outstanding parking charge.

YOU ARE NOW INVITED TO, pay the unpaid parking charge or if you were not the driver of the vehicle, to notify us (in writing using the form overleaf) of the name of the
driver and a valid current address of service for the driver AND pass this Notice on to the driver. Should the registered keeper provide either an unserviceable name and/or
address of the driver and/or the driver denies they were in charge of the vehicle at the time of the event, we may pursue the registered keeper for payment for this parking
charge with reasonable assumption that the keeper was the driver at the time of event. Failure to pay this charge may result in enforcement action which may include
County Court proceedings which may incur additional costs.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[ostell]

Is there a warning there about keeper liability? Is POFA 9 (2) (f) stated? If not then they cannot claim from the keeper, only the unknown driver. As it's the keeper they are trying to claim from then they cannot claim for more than the amount on the PCN POFA 4 (5)

Here's POFA https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...dule/4/enacted

[Redeye]

There is some more information on the next page (I've pasted it below and attached a screenshot).

So are you suggesting that we offer to pay the original PCN's (the amount of a 50% reduction if paid within 14 days or whatever it was)? Or is it the whole £100 each we should offer to pay?

Thanks

Registered Keeper Details and Data Processing:
Please note that we have obtained the name and address of the registered keeper of the
vehicle from the DVLA for the purposes of enforcing this unpaid charge. Such information
has been provided in accordance with the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing)
Regulations 2002. If you consider that such information has been used or obtained
inappropriately you may complain to the DVLA (www.gov.uk/contact-the-dvla)

If you were not the driver of the vehicle stated when the incident occurred, or you were the keeper of the vehicle stated when the incident occurred
But it was in the possession of another person (either with or without your consent), please provide any information that will lead to the true
Identification of the driver responsible for the parking charge notice by completing the following declaration and returning it to:
One Parking Solution Limited, 95 Arundel Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN13 3EU.

[ostell]

That extra info is irrelevant, they have failed to comply with POFA and therefore cannot hold the keeper liable.

Check if the other PCNs are also missing 9 (2) (f). The PCN you posted is also missing period of parking 9 (2) (a) and was delivered outside of the relevant period of 14 days, 9 (4) if there was no windscreen ticket. Posting on the 14th is insufficient as 2 working days are assumed for delivery.

Check all the PCN for compliance with POFA. List the fails for each one and write back to the solicitor telling them that you have no liability in this matter as their client has failed to meet the requirements of POFA and therefore there can be no transfer of liability to the keeper from the unknown driver. The alleged breaches were such a long time ago that you cannot possibly be expected to remember the identity of the drivers on each unremarkable day

[Redeye]

Thanks Ostell, I've drafted a reply and posted here for your critique. Is it ok?

Dear Sirs,


In response to your letter dated XXXXX and subsequent email dated XXXXX, we find that your client has not complied with POFA on multiple points and therefore cannot hold the keeper liable for any alleged offences.

OPSXXXXX:-
The contravention period has not been detailed - POFA section 9 (2) (a).
The notice was delivered outside of the relevant period of 14 days - POFA section 9 (4) & (5).

OPSXXXXX:-
The contravention period has not been detailed - POFA section 9 (2) (a).
The notice was delivered outside of the relevant period of 14 days - POFA section 9 (4) & (5).

OPSXXXXX:-
The notice was delivered outside of the relevant period of 14 days - POFA section 9 (4) & (5).

OPSXXXXX:-
The notice was delivered outside of the relevant period of 14 days - POFA section 9 (4) & (5).


In conclusion your client has failed to meet the requirements of POFA and therefore there can be no transfer of liability to the keeper from the unknown driver.

Due to these facts, no further communication is expected other than to confirm that no further action will be taken and our details will be removed from your records.

[ostell]

They have failed 9 (4), 9 (5) only defines the period
What happened to 9 (2) (f)?

9 (2) (a) states period of parking, please use that

[Redeye]

Thank you......I wasn't quite sure how to use 9 (2) (f) but I've given it another go with the draft below. is it worded correctly?


In response to your letter dated 29th July 2020 and subsequent email dated 4th September 2020, we find that your client has not complied with POFA on multiple points and therefore cannot hold the keeper liable for any alleged offences.

OXXXXX:-
The period of parking has not been detailed - POFA section 9 (2) (a).
Failed to advise of section 9 (2) (f) regarding keeper liability.
The notice was delivered outside of the relevant period of 14 days - POFA section 9 (4).

OXXXXX:-
The period of parking has not been detailed - POFA section 9 (2) (a).
Failed to advise of section 9 (2) (f) regarding keeper liability.
The notice was delivered outside of the relevant period of 14 days - POFA section 9 (4).

OXXXXX:-
Failed to advise of section 9 (2) (f) regarding keeper liability.
The notice was delivered outside of the relevant period of 14 days - POFA section 9 (4).

OXXXXX:-
Failed to advise of section 9 (2) (f) regarding keeper liability.
The notice was delivered outside of the relevant period of 14 days - POFA section 9 (4).


In conclusion your client has failed to meet the requirements of POFA and therefore there can be no transfer of liability to the keeper from the unknown driver.

Due to these facts, no further communication is expected other than to confirm that no further action will be taken and our details will be removed from your records.

[ostell]

Do not use offence, it isn't. " for any alleged breach of contract"

failing to give notice of keeper liability as prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) of the Act.

on the first mention of POFA spelling out in full, ie "Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)" and use POFA thereafter


in the final sentences: to continue in this matter with no chance of success is perverse and when I prevail I will seek my costs because of your behaviour

[Redeye]

Excellent!....thank you very much.

[Redeye]

Quick update to let everyone know that all 4 PCN's were cancelled.

Thanks very much to everyone that helped

[Pharmo]

was following this. That's great news mate!

[charitynjw]

DCBL have sent outa shedfull of these letters re spurious & ancient alleged debts.
It's probably a numbers game; some folk will pay up, scared of the official-looking letter from 'that company from the telly'.
But as you've discovered, they soon back down when challenged.
Imho, they can sing for it......."Take it away, DCBL.........."