dcblegal Ltd - parking charge, company car

[thechad]

Can someone please advise, any help will be appreciated.....

I drive a company car registered to my place of work. I received a parking charge from a services I stopped at. I identified myself as the driver. They then asked me for quite a lot of personal details, address, number, etc, etc.. Following doing some research I found them to be a private company and refused to send them my personal details.

They then sent me a mail saying that because I refuse to give them my details they will charge my company and have since been sending them threatening emails with charges that have escalated from £50 to £170.

Is this legal and what can I do to stop this?

[des8]

You can't stop them (or anyone else) sending requests for payment to the company.
It is not illegal.

You refer to "my company". Is this company owned by you/
If not what does the company propose to do about the PCN?

If the parking company does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service of court papers for the driver they can recover unpaid charges from the registered keeper

[thechad]

Thank you for responding.

By my company, it is the company I work for, I do not own the company.

[des8]

Do DCBL know your name and address?
If they do your company, could respond to them that as you have been identified (without reconfirming your identity) condition 5 (1) (b) of PoFA 2012 does not apply so DCBL cannot recover unpaid charges from the registered keeper

If DCBL don't know both your name and address it is for your company to take the next step.
Their options are:
1) ignore, but DCBL will then initiate a court claim which can then be defended
2)pay them
3) Inform DCBL you were the driver, and give DBCL your address. DCBL will then pursue you.

[thechad]

Thanks again, I have since given DCBL my details and asked that all future correspondence be addressed to myself, but, they responded saying that the transfer of liability has expired and that the company will still be charged and not me as the individual???

[des8]

Assuming a court claim has not yet been initiated they are talking b******s!

PoFA 2012 sch4 Sec5 applies:

Conditions that must be met [to claim unpaid charges from keeper]

5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—
(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

(2)Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.

Para 2 (my italics) is clear that the possibility of proceeding against the driver is only removed when the court claim is initiated

So if you don't want your company handling the case have a conversation with HR


However it is usually easier for the registered keeper to defend these cases than the driver, so you may want to defend it on behalf of your company.
Can't say what sort of defence there is as we have not seen any of the parking charge notices or car park signs

[thechad]

I will handle it myself, the company want nothing to do with it and accept no responsibility. I will go to court if I have to. I had a valid reason as to why I over stayed and think they are now just using bullying tactics in order to force a payment !

[des8]

The company might not want to handle the matter, but DCBL will probably issue the claim against the company.

The general rule is (and I might be wrong here so asking atticus to confirm/deny) that only a solicitor or barrister can represent a limited company in court.

If the company ignore a claim, DCBL will apply for a default judgment.

You will need to write back to DCBL and tell them that their rules about time limits do not trump the statute, and if they continue to ignore the statute it will be brought to the courts attention. You do not expect solicitors to blatantly ignore the law.

[atticus]

Those rules are often not strictly applied in cases allocated to the Small Claims Track.

[MaryS57]

I can confirm Atticus is right. I have a case against a limited company at the moment allocated to the small claims track - and this company has LIP's representing this legal entity in court (not very well!) and the district judge said absolutely nothing about this point during a preliminary hearing.

[Pezza54]

Please read CPR Part 39.6
In particular 39.6(b) The court can give permission for a company to be represented by an employee

However, under Part 27 The Small Claims Track, cpr 39.6(b) is omitted

It's a brave lip on the small claims track that tells the judge the company must have legal representation on this track

[thechad]

Things have progressed some and they have now issued a letter of claim against my company. I have identified myself as the driver and mentioned this to them many times but they refuse to communicate with me directly. I went back to all the emails sent between myself and Group Nexus before they stopped communicating with me and started harassing my company. I did submit a second appeal which they never responded to, will this help me at all? I have even gone as far as to contact MOTO but they just referred me back to Group Nexus and Group Nexus refuse to communicate with me and refer me back to DCBLegal.

[des8]

your company needs to write to DCBL and point out that as they are aware of the driver's identity they may not pursue the registered keeper. To do so will be contrary to the statute (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 para5(1)(b).
If they continue to pursue the company warn DCBL that as solicitors it could be classed as unreasonable behaviour and so invite the court to award your company its costs in defending any action.

The company could add:

Para 221 of the explanatory notes for POFA2012 state:

… 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)