Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2869 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi There,

 

my wife has received a letter from DCBL stating an overdue amount of £180 is owed to New Generation Parking Management?

they have the usual second stage, third stage amounts £160 and £265.

 

The heading reads NOTICE OF DEBT ASSIGNMENT ?

 

haven't got a clue what that means.

 

We can't remember having a letter from New Generation Parking Management?

 

no where does it say what the the charges are for,

 

just that they want me to send them this money (they have no chance of that)

 

they have 4 logos at the bottom of the letter, ICO. bsi. UKAS, and BPA.

 

they also state under their logo that they are certified bailiffs and High court enforcement.

 

How can they send a notice that does not clearly set out what the assigned best is

 

Your advice on this matter would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

everything is in this thread go back and read from post 1

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?454888-dcbl-notice-of-enforcement-re-New-Generation-Parking-charge-notice&p=4856147#post4856147

 

 

bottom line...

ignore them...

 

 

bugger all they can do

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is of any use but I have checked the Certificated Enforcement Agent (Bailiff) Register on the justice site and can not find any one from this company DCBL certificated to be a bailiff, not sure if there is any other register of baliffs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is of any use but I have checked the Certificated Enforcement Agent (Bailiff) Register on the justice site and can not find any one from this company DCBL certificated to be a bailiff, not sure if there is any other register of baliffs?

In this instance they are working as debt collectors and demanding unlawful fees.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Just received another letter of these clowns,

 

 

the new one quite strangely has has the Certified Bailiffs and High Court Enforcement Officers removed

and a statement added this case is not subject to High Court or Bailiff action

 

 

Also the cost has gone down by £20?

 

 

the heading has changed from Notice of Debt Assignment to Notice of Debt Transfer

There is no mention of any other fees like the first letter

which clearly states

 

 

Second stage Enforcement Fee £160,

Third stage Enforcement fee £260

 

 

stated before we never recieved a letter telling us we had parked illegally??

 

 

I wonder what a district Judge would think of the false representation on the first letter,

also making threats of Bailiff action and High court enforcement,

quite bewildered with it all?

 

 

hopefully they do carry out their threat of court action so we can see their explanation of the threatening letters

they have been sending out with no legality at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

bennyball,

it is all just rubbish and they are playing a percentages game.

 

 

If one person pays up then that covers all of the costs of pursuing another 10 people

plus a bit of profit as well.

 

 

Another company has tried this trick and got absolutely destroyed every time it actually got to court.

 

 

They are relying on you believing that as they are peoper certified bailiffs

they actually have some sort of rights or at least abilitiy to collect this "debt"

 

Even the assignment isnt legal

so the last thing they ever want to do is arrive at court and see someone sitting opposite them.

 

In reality, if the debt was real it would be the amount of the contractual obligation and court filing fees and no more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i just dont understand how these people are allowed to keep doing this .

as you said its all rubbish and hoping some one will be frightened scared harassed in to paying up .

 

 

. but in this day and age this should not be happening

WHY is the lazy government not doing some thing ....opps answered my own question

 

 

.. it should not be allowed

..as i have a 90 old lady living next door to me

and she has told me so many times she's been conned out money .

. from builder's to charity's

 

 

as this old lady soon as she gets a bill she pays it

even tho she dont know what its for

 

 

i have helped her over the years with these

she asked me if i could check if its real

..so on .

 

 

..these are the type of ppl these parasites pick on

mind you if it was not for this forum id have paid by now

 

 

. so i know how it feels to be scared/frightened by these ppl

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that as they are trying to collect a 'commercial debt' there are no fixed rules to abide by. Parking charges are not a CCA regulated activity.

If they were to be collecting using the interim permission from the FCA, they would get into serious trouble.

 

I think it is April this year that all registered companies must have applied for full permission and if not, will be removed from the register

 

Based on the latest letter, they have been spoken too but that does not address the problem of them using fake bailiff forms to intimidate people. Just because they have added the new rider doesn't stop it worrying people into paying up.

 

I doubt they will try it on in a court as they know they would get laughed out although, until they actually own the debt, they can't

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

own thread created

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

penalty..hope not..

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry IDR the date the letter was 05th January 2016 not sure what the date of the parking penalty was for as I have never seen anything from the parking company?

If they call it a Penalty they are in a pickle. They are not a Local Authority they are a DCA acting for a PPC.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I have just received another letter, this time it has the heading LEGAL RECOVERY ACTION

 

it states:

 

you have failed to pay the outstanding balance of £160 or to contact us to discus the repayment of this debt.

 

 

We have now recommended to our client the commencement of legal action against you.

 

 

However the granting of judgements and other orders are at the discretion of the courts.

If successful the escalation of legal proceedings at a cost of £75 would be added to the debt for recovery.

 

 

After further applications have been granted by the court the possible impacts of having a CCJ registered against you would be.

 

 

    Enables enforcement action to commence. Such as obtaining an Attachment of Earnings placing a charge on your property or applying for warrant of control to remove goods.

     

      Prevent further lending

       

      To make sure no further legal recovery action will take place please make immediate payment by one of the following methods.

       

      etc etc.

       

       

      Also surprisingly under their heading Dcbl, Certificated Bailiffs & High Court Enforcement has suddenly reappeared?

       

       

      Any advice would be most welcome please

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could recommend that you take court action against them but that would be your decision. It's just the same with their letter, they can recommend that their client can shove their heads up their backsides but they cannot force them to.

 

It is, again, just another threat. Nothing DCBL can do.

 

To make sure no further legal recovery action will take place please make immediate payment by one of the following methods.

They cannot say this as they are not the principle in this matter. They could say 'may' but definitely not 'will' as that id down to the client.

 

Have the amounts increased or decreased with this letter?

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Silverfox, thanks very much for your advice, the 3 letter I have received from Dcbl, (never got the original from the parking firm?) the first letter from dcbl had £180, but also had stages of enforcement

 

1st stage £160

2nd Stage £265

 

the second letter then went down to £100 but with an administration fee of £60?

 

the 3rd is as above.

 

Thanks very much for your advice the wife is really worried

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this means anything but at the bottom of the first letter it had

 

ICO, BSI, UKAS, BPA logos, but on the last two the ICO logo has disappeared, all underneath the logos on the first letter they had Direct collection Bailiffs which has disappeared off the two recent letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why dont these ppl clear off (dcbl)and let ppl get on with there lives .no one needs these bottom feeders in there lives .. all they do is wrong /illegal yet they still allowed to operate ......

who own's this disgusting company dcbl they should not be allowed to run disgusting company....

 

shut it down .................

Link to post
Share on other sites

who own's this disgusting company dcbl they should not be allowed to run disgusting company....

 

Ben and Stephen Pinner along with Gary Robinson

 

Ben Pinner

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/K-8k8-W3zD0K3F1_Fz68oJa6qFw/appointments

 

Stephen Pinner

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/03FWIAzX9g9RX40fK0_hi3JfH_U/appointments

 

Gary Robinson

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/Pvo4TfFGIA-5r6_O6WWNjEDPGOw/appointments

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the feeling a certain person at DCBL has a hand in these letters, maybe she needs it to pay airfares.

You mean the one who is the HCEO who delegates and exercises Due Diligence in the enforcement of a Writ from the US of A? The one who was spanked in court when asking for relief from being sued by the company she virtually bamkrupted in a botched enforcement against an innocent third party in: Huntress Search Ltd and Another v Dsi Food Ltd 2010

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the one who is the HCEO who delegates and exercises Due Diligence in the enforcement of a Writ from the US of A? The one who was spanked in court when asking for relief from being sued by the company she virtually bamkrupted in a botched enforcement against an innocent third party in: Huntress Search Ltd and Another v Dsi Food Ltd 2010

 

And the one responsible for the debacle at the Fish & Chip Shop.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the one who is the HCEO who delegates and exercises Due Diligence in the enforcement of a Writ from the US of A? The one who was spanked in court when asking for relief from being sued by the company she virtually bamkrupted in a botched enforcement against an innocent third party in: Huntress Search Ltd and Another v Dsi Food Ltd 2010

 

If a writ has been enforced and a person considers that there has been some wrongdoing, then responsibility will indeed be targeted towards Ms Claire Sandbrook as it is her name that will be endorsed on the reverse of the writ. Naturally, questions must centre on how she is able to carry out her role when she is mainly resident in the USA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...