OPC/DCB Legal ANPR PCN PAOLOC Now Claimform - overstay - St Johns Retail Park Wolves . *** Claim Discontinued ***

[TYLERYDER]

Where were you when i needed that..its sent already.

Thanx anyway

[lookinforinfo]

i am sorry That I missed that but in all honesty had you read up as advised, you would have picked up on the points I made above. That's how I learned. 

 

And had you posted up what you were sending we could have critiqued it for you.

As it is, if you remember the points made above, it should help you on the day. 

 

There may be a chance of adding some of the above even now, as you are a litigant in person.

[TYLERYDER]

I felt that i was being a pain....i didnt post the WS

[lookinforinfo]

You weren't being a pain-there is an awful lot to learn.

And the more questions you ask , as well as reading around the subject, the more you learn.

 

We want our members to win against these crooks, but because they consistently lie in their WS" and in Court it is often important that you know the underlying statements that are made.

 

You should have received their WS by now, so if you post it on here we can point out where they have gone wrong which will help if the case ends up in Court.

 

It would help if you also posted your WS so as to give you extra advice.

[TYLERYDER]

I have already posted their WS PDF....court date/phone call is 28th August

[lookinforinfo]

I missed your post of their WS.

Typical DBCL .

Full of half truths and misdirection's.

 

You can pick holes in their WS.

their Accreditation on 6 and 7 is a joke.

 

They are giving the idea that they are law abiding and stick to the Code of Conduct and the DVLA guidelines.

When in fact nothing could be further from the truth as you can read here-

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/writev/dda/dda09.htm

 

the relevant sections are from 39 to 59 in which Trading Standards took them to Court in March 2011 and they were found guilty on 36 charges of criminal behaviour and fined over £26,000 and the DVLA suspended their use of DVLA facilities.

 

Once they were restored all the PCNs that were issued during the shutdown were then processed by the DVLA  which was unlawful. That is the actual kind of company that you are dealing with.

 

In S23 of their WS after stating that they were able to [erroneously ] claim more than the £100 stated on their signage and confirmed by POFA they then quote from another case to vindicate their claim.

 

This case Chaplair Limited v Kumari 2015 relates to extra costs being charged on a lease and has absolutely nothing to do with car parking  which is governed by POFA.

 

You should know by now that to add anything over £100 is regarded as an abuse of process and in breach of the office of fair trading's  Guide on debt collection.

[brassnecked]

They have damned themselves under the Lewes tolchocking as they have included the £60 as reasonable to charge the Keeper mentioning that a Charge of up to £300 could be levied for non payment  quoting paragraph 45  of Chaplair v Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798.  They are cruising for a shock so long as your WS has identified where they are talking oxen excrement.  The addition of the £60 to the Keeper has been called out as Abuse of process in the Lewes judgment.

 

Did you post up your WS on here as submitted?  If not please do so as pdf, just to make sure you have rebutted their points.

[TYLERYDER]

Court hearing date is 28th August. i have already sent the WS i couldn't get any help here so i ended up just sending something. 

[brassnecked]

what did you send, might still be something you can use at the 28th phone hearing, so long as we see what you have submitted.

[TYLERYDER]

 Here is my WS 

 

 

WSTyleryder.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

That is pretty good

-you have got the salient points across and you can expand on them if need be in Court.

 

You would have been better saying you do not believe they had planning permission from the Council and put them to strict proof that they have -and they must have it. Other wise they are in breach of their Code of Conduct, Town and Country [advertisements] regulations and  the Consumer Rights Act 2015 s. 71 look up point 71 and read what it says].

 

Of course it is no surprise that they flout Laws to the extent that they have since they have been banned by the DVLA in the past from being able to access motorist's data as a result of a Court case where they were found guilty on 36 charges of criminal behaviour regarding the running of a car park and fined £26,000.

 

This makes a mockery of their WS that states that they adhere to the Law viz a viz their accreditation.

You can then bring in about the irrelevance of the Kumari case in their WS since it is now trite Law that charging extra amounts over the £100 is an abuse of process regardless of how it is dressed up. 

 

As they have been pursuing the wrong person then they have breached GDPR in accessing your data from the DVLA and passing it on to debt collectors and DCBL legal, you feel that even £500 which appears to be the going rate for such breaches, is an under charge in this situation.

[brassnecked]

The Kumari case has been shown to be bad law with the Lewes and other cases. Your WS isn't bad at all, just look at hitting them for GDPR when they lose.

[TYLERYDER]

I thought i will give an update 

[brassnecked]

Like Brave Sir Robin they turned and they ran, well done you.  I would phone the court just to make sure though, then we can alter the title to show the result.

[TYLERYDER]

Thanx. Do i need to send something to the court

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory!

 

No you don't, but as brassnecked wrote, give the court a ring just to make sure it really has been discontinued and they're not lying.

[lookinforinfo]

Well done-that is really good news. I imagine that your WS made them realise that they had no chance of winning so best to cut their losses.