Today, 12:23 AM
Welcome to the forum @Kenny Jockins. You need to edit your post so that the driver remains unidentified.
At the moment, wording such as “the car I was driving” and “I forgot to pay” identifies the driver. That should be removed. Use neutral third-person wording only.
For example:
“The driver was using the son’s Motability car that day, as the usual car was unavailable. The driver had been working at the university and normally paid for parking daily, but appears to have failed to pay on that occasion. No earlier letters are recalled, and the first notice received was from DCBL.”
From now on, only refer to:
Do not use wording such as:
That matters because First Parking can only pursue the driver, unless they have fully complied with PoFA and can transfer liability to the keeper or hirer. If the driver is identified for them, one of the strongest possible defence points may be lost unnecessarily.
As for DCBL, they can be safely ignored at this stage. They are powerless debt collectors. They are not court bailiffs in this situation, they cannot enter premises, seize goods, affect credit files, or enforce anything. Their only real function is to send intimidating letters in the hope that low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree will pay out of ignorance or fear.
The important step is not to engage with DCBL, but to get the original documents from First Parking LLP. Until we see the original Notice to Keeper, or any Notice to Hirer if this was treated as a Motability/lease vehicle case, we do not know whether First Parking has any keeper/hirer liability at all.
The recipient should send a short email or online complaint to First Parking LLP along these lines:
Do not identify the driver in that message. Keep everything in terms of “the driver” and “the recipient of the debt collector letter”.
At the moment, wording such as “the car I was driving” and “I forgot to pay” identifies the driver. That should be removed. Use neutral third-person wording only.
For example:
“The driver was using the son’s Motability car that day, as the usual car was unavailable. The driver had been working at the university and normally paid for parking daily, but appears to have failed to pay on that occasion. No earlier letters are recalled, and the first notice received was from DCBL.”
From now on, only refer to:
- the driver
- the keeper
- the hirer
- the recipient of the debt collector letter
Do not use wording such as:
- “I parked”
- “I drove”
- “I forgot to pay”
- “the car I was driving”
That matters because First Parking can only pursue the driver, unless they have fully complied with PoFA and can transfer liability to the keeper or hirer. If the driver is identified for them, one of the strongest possible defence points may be lost unnecessarily.
As for DCBL, they can be safely ignored at this stage. They are powerless debt collectors. They are not court bailiffs in this situation, they cannot enter premises, seize goods, affect credit files, or enforce anything. Their only real function is to send intimidating letters in the hope that low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree will pay out of ignorance or fear.
The important step is not to engage with DCBL, but to get the original documents from First Parking LLP. Until we see the original Notice to Keeper, or any Notice to Hirer if this was treated as a Motability/lease vehicle case, we do not know whether First Parking has any keeper/hirer liability at all.
The recipient should send a short email or online complaint to First Parking LLP along these lines:
Quote:I have received correspondence from DCBL concerning an alleged parking charge at Lancaster University on 19 February 2026.
No original Notice to Keeper, Notice to Hirer, or other earlier correspondence has been received.
Please treat this as a formal request and complaint. I require you to provide:
- A copy of the original Notice to Keeper and/or Notice to Hirer.
- The date on which it was issued.
- The name and address to which it was sent.
- The source from which you obtained those details.
- Copies of any documents supplied to you by Motability or any lease/hire company.
- Copies of all photographs and ANPR images relied upon.
- A copy of the signage terms you allege were breached.
- Confirmation as to whether you are seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
As no earlier notice was received, the case must be placed on hold and the matter reset to allow a proper appeal once the relevant documents have been supplied.
Do not identify the driver in that message. Keep everything in terms of “the driver” and “the recipient of the debt collector letter”.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
