Urgent Advice Needed: Unexpected Final Reminder for £100 PCN from ParkMaven

[Rav123]

Hello esteemed members of Legal Beagles,

I hope you're all doing well. I'm currently facing a perplexing situation with ParkMaven and am seeking advice on the best course of action.

Situation Overview: Today, the 23rd of October, I received a final reminder from ParkMaven demanding immediate payment of £100 for an event that allegedly took place on the 12th of September. This is the very first communication I've received from them regarding this matter, and I was completely unaware of any such event prior to today.

Key Points:

1. The final reminder states that the 14-day discount period has now passed. However, given that this is my first notification about the event, I was never provided an opportunity to benefit from this discount period.
2. The letter, dated the 18th of October, warns that failure to pay the full amount within seven days may lead to debt recovery action or court proceedings against me. Given that I only received the letter today, five days after its date, this essentially leaves me with just two days to address the situation.
3. I was not the driver of the vehicle on the 12th of September, the date of the alleged event.
4. The letter provides minimal details about the event, only mentioning the times the vehicle entered and exited a location on Lincoln Road. There are no photographs, specific location details, or any other evidence provided.
5. The contact number provided on the letter is solely for making payments, with no option to speak to a representative. Similarly, the website link directs me to a payment portal with no option to appeal or dispute the charge.

Seeking Advice: Given the above circumstances, I'm keen to understand:

1. How should I approach ParkMaven, especially considering the limited time frame and lack of prior communication?
2. Are there any legal guidelines or BPA regulations that might be relevant in this situation?
3. Has anyone else faced a similar situation with ParkMaven or other parking operators, and if so, how did you handle it?

I genuinely appreciate any guidance or advice you can offer. This situation has been quite distressing, and I'm eager to address it in the most informed and fair manner possible.

Thank you in advance for your time and expertise.

Warm regards,

Rav

[des8]

1)You could ignore them and await debt collectors letters or perhaps a county court claim, at which point you request copies of all correspondence by sending a Subject Access Request or
2) write telling them you have not received any previous correspondence, so could they send you copies as you don't
know what they are on about. Make sure you do not identify the possible driver or
3) pay up

I would go for 2), but your choice!

[Rav123]

1)You could ignore them and await debt collectors letters or perhaps a county court claim, at which point you request copies of all correspondence by sending a Subject Access Request or
2) write telling them you have not received any previous correspondence, so could they send you copies as you don't
know what they are on about. Make sure you do not identify the possible driver or
3) pay up

I would go for 2), but your choice!

Thank you. I concur that option 2 appears to be the most suitable approach. I've located the email address "support@parkmaven.com" mentioned in their complaints policy. I'll reach out to them and await their response

[Rav123]

Hello again, Legal Beagles Community,

I'm back with an update on my parking fine issue and some new developments that have occurred since my last post.

Quick Recap: As you might recall, I was dealing with a £100 parking fine from Park Maven, despite not being the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention and having received no prior notices. Following the advice from this forum, I wrote to Park Maven to dispute the fine and clarify the situation but received no response.

Recent Developments: Today, I received a letter from DCBL, a debt collection agency, demanding £170. This is a significant increase from the original fine, which I suspect was much lower initially.

Actions: Based on previous advice from the community:

• I will send a Subject Access Request to DCBL to obtain all information they hold about me and this case.
• I have written again to Park Maven today, informing them of the situation and reiterating my position. I'm currently awaiting their response.

Given these actions and the latest demand from DCBL, I have a few questions and concerns:

1. Legal Proceedings: With DCBL's warning of legal proceedings if I don't pay within 14 days, what should I be preparing for, considering I've already taken steps to dispute this?
2. Cost Escalation: The fine has now more than tripled from the original amount. If this goes to court, what additional costs could I be facing?
3. Further Steps: Is there anything else I should be doing at this stage? I've followed the advice given so far, but this new development with DCBL is concerning.
4. Contesting the Fine: Given that I wasn't the driver and have not been able to present this to Park Maven, how should I proceed in contesting the £170 demanded by DCBL?

Your advice and insights on these new developments would be incredibly helpful. This situation is proving to be quite complex and stressful, and I want to make sure I'm handling it as effectively as possible.

Thank you all once again for your continued support and guidance.

Best regards,


Rav

[des8]

You have left your identity visible on the DCBL letter, so edit!

DCBL can either be ignored or you can write explaining you are awaiting a response from Park Maven
DC.BL are debt collectors and are toothless

Eventually you will hear from their sister company DCB Legal, at that point come back here
They will probably send a "letter before action", and then you respond to find out exactly what has happened.

[Rav123]

Hello everyone,

I have now received a letter from DCB Legal and a Claim Form.

Here's a recap and the latest developments:

• September 19, 2023: Alleged parking incident occurred. I was not driving the vehicle as I was at work.
• October 18, 2023: First notification of the incident via a letter demanding £100, received on October 23, 2023. I reached out to Park Maven for clarification.
• Response from Park Maven: They noted the appeal period had expired but reset the due date for a reduced payment. Provided proof of initial PCN dispatch via hybrid mail.
• System Error: Attempted to handle the matter through their online system on November 16, but encountered errors.
• November 20, 2023: Contacted Park Maven regarding the system issue; no resolution.
• New Demand and Forum Advice: Received a £170 demand from DCBL.
• Legal Escalation: As predicted, I received a letter from DCB Legal, to which I did not respond, followed by a claim form from the court demanding £262.28.

Following guidance from this site, I've logged into Money Claim Online and submitted an Acknowledgment of Service (AOS) within the stipulated 14-day period, opting to dispute and intend to defend all parts of this claim as an interim measure to buy time and remain compliant.

Questions:

1. How should I handle the legal claim when I was not the driver at the time of the alleged offense?
2. Considering calling DCBL directly to discuss the situation—would this be advisable? I am hoping to negotiate a fair resolution or at least understand my options better. Any advice or experiences would be immensely helpful.

Attached are redacted copies of all documents related to this case. Please advise on the next steps I should take.

Thank you in advance for your help!

[des8]

So send a CPR 31.14 request to DCBL
There is a template in the SHORTCUTS panel on the right of this page.
It will need amending for your case, but you should be requesting copies of (i) the PCN(s) (ii)fully legible photo(s) of the whole of the signs/contract

You have until 14th May to file your defence, so no problems
Did you ever obtain a copy of the PCN?

Post back when you hear from DCBL, or at the beginning of May

[Rav123]

Thank you for your guidance. I will send a CPR 31.14 request to DCBL using the template provided, amending it to include requests for copies of the PCN and fully legible photos of the signs/contract as suggested. I appreciate the reminder about the defense filing deadline of May 14th; I've marked it on my calendar.

To answer your question, yes, I did receive a copy of the PCN. They sent it as an email attachment at the same time they sent the proof of posting, when I requested more information.

With all this in mind, do you think I have a reasonable chance of success if this case goes to court? Any further advice or thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated as I prepare my defense.

Thanks again for your help!

[des8]

When the PCN and signage are to hand it should be possible to produce a viable defence.

[Rav123]

When the PCN and signage are to hand it should be possible to produce a viable defence.

An update regarding the situation with DCB Legal:

I have not received any communication from DCB Legal concerning the CPR 31.14 request I sent on the 23rd of April. The request was for copies of the PCN and the fully legible signs & Contract, and although it was delivered and signed for on the 24th of April, there has been no response from their side.

I am reaching out to ensure I'm taking the correct steps and to seek any further advice you might have on how to proceed, given the silence from their end.

Thank you for your continued support and guidance.

[des8]

Time to draft a defence .... will suggest a draft in a day or so

[Rav123]

Time to draft a defence .... will suggest a draft in a day or so

Thank you, I greatly appreciate your assistance.

[des8]

Here is a draft defence for you.
It is only a draft and you need to check it carefully to see if it is suitable for you to use or amend as you see fit.

DEFENCE
1.The Defendant received the claim xxx from Parkhaven on xxx
2.Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

3The Defendant avers the Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess The Defendant's position with regards the claim.and secondly has failed to properly plead its case in accordance with CPR16.4(1)(a):
(i)state that the claim is for unpaid parking and damages and refers to parking charge Notices (PCN(s)). It is unclear about the number of PCN(s) that the Claimant is seeking to claim against the Defendant together with an itemisation list of charges and damages related to those PCN(s); and
(ii)whether the PCN(s) (if more than one) were issued for the same breach of parking conditions at the same location or that the PCN(s) relate to different locations or both; and
(iii)the Particulars of Claim alleges that the Defendant is liable as the Driver but fails to provide any reasons on which the Claimant relies upon to prove such liability.
4. The Claimant's Particulars of Claim are unclear on whether the Defendant was the driver or was the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.
5.On the DD/mm/YY the Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the Claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to XXXX.
6. xxxx has not sent any of these documents to the Defendant.
7Further, the Defendant is surprised by the poor drafting of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a firm of solicitors and so the lack of compliance with the CPR 16.4(1)(a) to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused. Accordingly, the court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.1 to:
(i)make an order that unless the Claimant (i) files and re-serves an amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and (ii) provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead his case within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant;
If the Claimant should comply with such an order, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimant bears the costs of the amendment.
Or (ii)if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim in whole or in part, as the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action;
Or (iii)exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit
8.Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, the Defendant intends to respond to the allegations raised in the Particulars of Claim as best he is able
.Defendant’s liability as the driver of the vehicle
9.This claim appears to be for a parking charge following a breach of contract

10. In the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant pursues the defendant as the driver, so it is fair to assume the Claimant has actual and/or constructive knowledge of the driver’s identity.
However, the Claimant has failed to produce any supporting evidence that demonstrates the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle when the alleged contravention(s) took place. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s allegations are nothing more than a fishing expedition and the Claimant has no knowledge of the driver.

11. The Claimant asserts the reason the PCN was issued was "no valid parking session" but has failed to provide an explanation of what this means

Liability as registered keeper of the vehicle

12.It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of Vehicle xxxx , reg. no. 1234,
13. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled recover the Parking Charge from the Defendant as registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant repeats paragraphs five to nine (inclusive) of this Defence
14.Further and alternatively, the Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions under POFA 2012 in order for the registered keeper to be held liable for the Parking Charge:
(i)Contrary to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant has failed to provide evidence that it has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the Parking Charge.
(ii)Contrary to condition 5(1)(b), the Claimant claims to know the identity of the driver prior to the commencement of these proceedings. In the particulars of claim, the Claimant represents that “the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle”. In light of that allegation, it is implied that the Claimant has actual knowledge of the driver’s identity and so the Defendant cannot be held liable for the Parking Charge as the registered keeper, and the Claimant must pursue the driver of the vehicle only.
The Defendant will seek to rely on paragraph 221 of the POFA 2012 Explanatory Notes, which states that:
… The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity (emphasis added)
15.The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimant provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead his case else the Claim should stand struck out.
16.In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimant bears the costs of the amendment.
16.It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

sign and date

[Rav123]

Here is a draft defence for you.
It is only a draft and you need to check it carefully to see if it is suitable for you to use or amend as you see fit.

DEFENCE
1.The Defendant received the claim xxx from Parkhaven on xxx
2.Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

3The Defendant avers the Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess The Defendant's position with regards the claim.and secondly has failed to properly plead its case in accordance with CPR16.4(1)(a):
(i)state that the claim is for unpaid parking and damages and refers to parking charge Notices (PCN(s)). It is unclear about the number of PCN(s) that the Claimant is seeking to claim against the Defendant together with an itemisation list of charges and damages related to those PCN(s); and
(ii)whether the PCN(s) (if more than one) were issued for the same breach of parking conditions at the same location or that the PCN(s) relate to different locations or both; and
(iii)the Particulars of Claim alleges that the Defendant is liable as the Driver but fails to provide any reasons on which the Claimant relies upon to prove such liability.
4. The Claimant's Particulars of Claim are unclear on whether the Defendant was the driver or was the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.
5.On the DD/mm/YY the Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the Claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to XXXX.
6. xxxx has not sent any of these documents to the Defendant.
7Further, the Defendant is surprised by the poor drafting of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a firm of solicitors and so the lack of compliance with the CPR 16.4(1)(a) to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused. Accordingly, the court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.1 to:
(i)make an order that unless the Claimant (i) files and re-serves an amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and (ii) provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead his case within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant;
If the Claimant should comply with such an order, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimant bears the costs of the amendment.
Or (ii)if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim in whole or in part, as the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action;
Or (iii)exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit
8.Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, the Defendant intends to respond to the allegations raised in the Particulars of Claim as best he is able
.Defendant’s liability as the driver of the vehicle
9.This claim appears to be for a parking charge following a breach of contract

10. In the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant pursues the defendant as the driver, so it is fair to assume the Claimant has actual and/or constructive knowledge of the driver’s identity.
However, the Claimant has failed to produce any supporting evidence that demonstrates the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle when the alleged contravention(s) took place. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s allegations are nothing more than a fishing expedition and the Claimant has no knowledge of the driver.

11. The Claimant asserts the reason the PCN was issued was "no valid parking session" but has failed to provide an explanation of what this means

Liability as registered keeper of the vehicle

12.It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of Vehicle xxxx , reg. no. 1234,
13. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled recover the Parking Charge from the Defendant as registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant repeats paragraphs five to nine (inclusive) of this Defence
14.Further and alternatively, the Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions under POFA 2012 in order for the registered keeper to be held liable for the Parking Charge:
(i)Contrary to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant has failed to provide evidence that it has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the Parking Charge.
(ii)Contrary to condition 5(1)(b), the Claimant claims to know the identity of the driver prior to the commencement of these proceedings. In the particulars of claim, the Claimant represents that “the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle”. In light of that allegation, it is implied that the Claimant has actual knowledge of the driver’s identity and so the Defendant cannot be held liable for the Parking Charge as the registered keeper, and the Claimant must pursue the driver of the vehicle only.
The Defendant will seek to rely on paragraph 221 of the POFA 2012 Explanatory Notes, which states that:
… The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity (emphasis added)
15.The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimant provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead his case else the Claim should stand struck out.
16.In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimant bears the costs of the amendment.
16.It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

sign and date

Hi DES8 I hope this email finds you well. Thank you once again for your invaluable assistance with drafting the defence document regarding my ongoing case with DCB Legal.

Since your last update, there have been some developments. DCB Legal responded to my earlier request for signage and notices. This morning, on the 13th of May, I received a 'Notice to Keeper' dated 19th September, along with a final reminder for £100 dated 18th October. They have also provided copies of the terms and conditions, payment signs, and various signage proofs, including those at the entrance of the car park stating it is a paid parking area. Additionally, they included a site layout, a signage key, and dated pictures of the car park all from January 2021, which are over three years old.

Given these developments, I'd appreciate your advice on any potential amendments to the draft defence you kindly prepared. Here is a summary of the key points from your draft for your reference:

1. Denial of allegations unless admitted, citing lack of specific details in the claim.
2. Request for clearer particulars of claim and compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
3. Challenge on the clarity of defendant's role as driver or keeper.
4. Assertion of non-compliance with POFA 2012 conditions for keeper liability.
5. Call for the claim to be struck out or amended if not clarified.

Could you please review the updates and advise if adjustments are necessary based on the latest correspondence from DCB Legal? Your expertise in ensuring the defence aligns precisely with the current status of the case is highly appreciated.

Thank you for your continued support.

Best regards

[des8]

So please post up (probably best via a hosting site) what they have sent you.
Your defence has to be filed by tomorrow so may be working into the night!