Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


DragonFly1967 last won the day on March 5 2018

DragonFly1967 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,675 Excellent

About DragonFly1967

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi. You helped with some advice back in early 2018. I got a parking ticket at south Gate car park Stansted.

    I ignored all letters and did not respond to nout. All went quiet after about six months.

    I have a new letter from Debt recovery plus. 

    How many years can they go back on  ?

    I will ignore until i have a court letter.

    Thanks in advance.

  2. Yeah, I get that, but it's just the fact that they're so blatant as to deny that the POC mentions a contract when it quite clearly does. I will be mentioning that in my WS. Well, it'd be rude not to
  3. Reply today for the 31.14 Some pictures of signage, miraculously, not showing the "staff parking" signs. And apparently "The Contract" wasn't mentioned in their POC so I can't have that. Post #18 Yeah, my bad, the POC doesn't mention "the contract" at all I wish I could be a 'legal professional' like wot they clearly are
  4. I agree that they'll probably ignore the CPR request, or send back some 'fob off' letter, most seem to do that. But if it does get as far as court (I'm still sceptical) I'll be able to show the Judge that I (a non professional solicitor) at least, did everything correctly.
  5. As they've now received this (signed for yesterday) I can post it up. My CPR 31.14 request (tweaked slightly from the template). I think they're going to have particular problems with item 6 on my list, because it doesn't exist. I'm expecting the excuse of "but that's not mentioned in our POC" blah, blah, blah. But I don't think that that's going to help them very much if this ever gets anywhere near a Judge. CPR31.14.pdf
  6. OK Just been to our local County Court to ask their advice about a counterclaim. I probably won't risk it to be honest. It doesn't really seem fair (to me at least) but if their claim gets struck out by the Judge, I *could* then (depending on the Judge) be landed with their legal representatives costs (capped at £80) plus the hearing fee (whatever that will be). So, it will actually be cheaper (potentially at least) for me to allow this case to continue without a counterclaim, and then, once I've won this one, issue my own claim against Lowlife parking.
  7. FTMDave.. Almost, I did have one ticket from UKPC for 'not displaying a valid permit' when their own photos showed the permit clearly displayed in the windscreen. That one would have been really funny in court if they decided to press it, but eventually, they seemed to wake up from their own self induced coma and cancelled the ticket. Highview use ANPR (on the same site) and these tickets are for parking in a "patrons only" car park for longer than 4 hours, thereby breaching their so called contrick contract. As you can see, this car park is quite clearly signed as "PATR
  8. I might pop in to the Bristol Justice Centre on Monday for a spot of advice then. Best to check I suppose
  9. Hmm, I thought that was only for claims worth >=£10k or personal injury claims over £1k and that in all other cases, costs were limited. Especially on the small claims track.
  10. No idea. They're listed as the Claimant, but I don't think for a moment that that means anything. I've got their phone number, I wonder if I should ring up for a little chat to ask them if they know what DCB (il)Legal are doing in their name. Although my gut feeling is to just leave them to it and let 'em spend as much as possible on their hopeless case, it might be a valuable lesson for them.
  11. So, worth doing either way then really. Whether I win in court, or because they just pay me and run away it'll be the best £35 I've spent in a long time And it'll serve the purpose of costing LowLife parking a few more quid into the bargain. They've already spent £185 on issuing the claim, which I think is absolutely hilarious, though I don't know if that comes from LowLife Towers or out of DCB (il)Legal's rake off from people that do roll over and pay, especially when threatened with court. Bullies, the lot of them but this time, they've picked on someone that's happy to fight
  12. Whilst I take both of your points, I can't/don't see how I could lose a counterclaim. Obviously it depends on the Judge on the day (law unto themselves and all that) but given the weight of my evidence, or rather, using their own evidence against them, I think a counter claim for an unknown sum (at the Judges discretion) might be the final slap in the face that they need. As far as I can work out, as long as I don't put any kind of monetary value on the counterclaim, all that it's going to cost me is £25 (online) to ruin their day by winning, even if it's only a token amount.
  13. brassnecked. Oh boy, are they going to be disappointed. Apart from 1, I have all of the NtK's, reminders, letters from DR-, SCS Law, DCBL and DCB Legal. Which of course, I'll be asking for again under 31.14 (because I can). And because they've mentioned "The Contract" in their POC, I want that too, along with a few other bits. And if they decide not to play ball, I may apply for an order for disclosure to the court, and I'll also be looking out for anything that may fall under 31.23 while I'm at it. They want to play hardball, that's fine with me
  14. Oh I hope so brassnecked, I really do. Of the 20 tickets that they're claiming for, 4 were appealed to POPLA and those appeals were won by way of Highview withdrawing (already confirmed by POPLA by way of an SAR). And the other 16 NtK's all arrived outside of the time allowed by POFA, some of them 60+ days after the parking event, and on a few occasions, they didn't even ask the DVLA for keeper details until after the time allowed by POFA for the NtK to arrive. KADOE access after 23 days, 57 days. 58 days, 64 days. The Judge is going to crucify the poor schmuck that comes to repre
  15. OK then, here we go... Name of the Claimant : Highview Parking Limited Claimants Solicitors: DCB (il)Legal Date of issue – 09/09/2020 Date for AOS - 27/09/2020 by my reckoning Date to submit Defence - 11/10/2020 (so 09/10/2020 by my reckoning) What is the claim for – 1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle (Registration) at Yate Shopping Centre - Main Car Park. 2. The PCN(s) were issued on 24/09/2016, 31/12/2016, 05/05/2017, 03/06/2017, 16/07/2017, 22/07/2017
  • Create New...