Highview/DCBLe 20*PCNs PAPLOC now Claimform - Yate Shopping Centre - Main Car Park.

[DragonFly1967]

Well, finally, after almost 4½ YEARS  of PCN's from LowView Parking, and countless letters from them, DR-, SCS Law and DCBL I have finally received a 'Letter of Claim' from "DCB Legal" (well, someone is getting ideas above their station!)
Maybe I'll finally get my all expenses paid day out at Bristol Justice Centre 

I have until 12th July to respond to their 'Letter of Claim' according to them. I'm just wondering in how many different ways I can tell them to go and take a very long walk off of a short pier  and that if they think they've got a snowball in hell's chance, to bring their A game to court with them.

Their claiming that I owe (Highview, via them of course) £3,000 and that I must complete their 'reply form'. I've got some really bad news for them 

[ericsbrother]

Of course you should respond so they dont try and use that against you to help them sell their sob story

DCB legal is a real company of solicitors and owned by the same person who owns the bailiff firm Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd and  who oddly isnt the regulated person at his firm.

write to Yasmin Mia as she is a regulated director of the lawyer co

[DragonFly1967]

Oh, I will be responding. I know I have to, (CYA and all that ), but I most certainly won't be using the reply form that they seem to be insisting that I use. Cheeky swines!

I'm really just wondering how savage to be, do I keep it businesslike or go full on, give them both barrels and tear them a new one?

Edited June 26, 2020 by DragonFly1967

[DragonFly1967]

This is what I am going with by way of reply to their letter of claim.

 

Quote

Dear DCBL/DCB Legal et al.

 

Thank you for your “LETTER OF CLAIM” dated 12^th June.

 

I strongly recommend that you consult your client and ask them for the full details of the vehicle mentioned in your LOC, including those cases where a POPLA appeal was made, the reasons given for those appeals, and your clients reasons for withdrawing in all POPLA appeals that I submitted bar one, which they lost (although that may have been for a previous vehicle, also owned by myself at the time).

Of the Highview references mentioned above, should you wish to bring a claim, 16 of them are fatally flawed, at least 2 of which will see you in very hot water in court as I appealed and won (by way of your clients withdrawal) at POPLA. I would have assumed that you’d already know this, seeing as how you’ve been legally trained and I presume, passed numerous law exams. Unless you’ve had the tea boy write to me by mistake?

As the County Courts work on a Balance of Probability, and as 16 of the 20 are fatally flawed, it would be fair to assume that the remaining 4 tickets are also defective in some way even if there was a contract formed between your client and either the driver or myself as keeper. Which I can assure you is not the case.

 

Once you have read, acted upon and understood the above, if you and/or your client wish to go on and waste a Judges time by proceeding to issue a claim, then I shall look forward to meeting your representatives on the day.

I would suggest that you have them “bring a toothbrush”.
 

 

Yours without regard.


Recorded Keeper of the vehicle at the time.

 

[lookinforinfo]

That letter was quite restrained for you Dragonfly. Taking pity on the new boy on the street I suppose. You were probably a bit remiss on not going for Highview back in the days when you were being  showered confetti like with PCNs. Perhaps they would have learnt their lesson then and slunk off into the ether or wherever they live .However  the going rate for breaching GDPR is nearer £500 than £250 so you may benefit by having held off for so long.

While you are waiting for  a reply you might like some light reading material that may really hit them hard if they did decide to take you to Court.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made

The Act is designed to protect consumers for the predations of parking companies and their tame [ie toothless] erzatz debt collectors. It might also include the BPA depending on their  Code of Conduct depending on how Highview are accusing you of breaching their money making scheme.

Good to see you back and fighting.

[DragonFly1967]

Well, I thought it best to be a little bit restrained as, in the unlikely event that this goes anywhere near a court, I'd be happy to produce that, rather than one containing all of the rude words that I can think of and several more than I'd have to Google 

Their LOC is laughable really (for reasons that I won't go in to on a public forum (you never know who's reading it)) but if they do decide to take this to court, they are going to loose, spectacularly! 

 

[ericsbrother]

If the LOC is rubbish then tell them that you will in any case ask for the claim to be struck out without a hearing as they are supposed to be solicitors and know how to write these things properly

[DragonFly1967]

The letter is written correctly, it's just the contents of it.

I'm just going to let them waste as much of their time and money as I can, so I don't want to give them too many clues. If they work it out before they spend any more money it won't be anywhere near as much fun  

[DragonFly1967]

Just to keep the thread updated.

This is what got sent to DCB Legal in the end, and, just for peace of mind and to be able to prove to a Judge that they did receive it, it was sent as 'signed for' which they did this morning. Have it!

 

Dear DCBL/DCB Legal et al.

 

Thank you for your “LETTER OF CLAIM” dated 12th June.

Rather unfortunately for you, I was not born yesterday. Therefore, please pay very close attention to the rest of this letter and do your own research into the matters raised herein before taking any further steps.

 

I strongly recommend that you consult with your client and ask them for the full details of the vehicle mentioned in your LOC. I’d be tempted to ask them for everything they have as they’re quite clearly not giving you all of the information that you’re going to need should you wish to continue.

Of the 20 Highview references mentioned above, should you wish to bring a claim, as you’re the legal experts (allegedly) you should already be aware that 16 of them are fatally flawed. I’m not going to give you any information as to why as I’m quite sure that you’ll be able to figure it out for yourselves before you waste any more of your own time, and more likely, your clients’ money.

Suffice to say that I had imagined that knowing the full facts of a case, before sending out a Letter of Claim would be the most basic of prerequisites. I’m sure that your Law Professor(s) would be very disappointed in your lack of even simple understanding of the law. “Must Try Harder” will be, I’m sure, a familiar phrase to you.

Unless you’ve had the tea boy write to me by mistake?

As the County Courts work on a balance of probability basis, and as 16 of the 20 are fatally flawed, I think it would be fair to assume that the remaining 4 tickets are also defective in some way even if there had been a contract formed between your client and either the driver or myself as keeper. Which I can assure you is not the case.

 

Once you have read, acted upon and understood the above, if you and/or your client wish to go on and waste Court time by proceeding to issue a claim, then I shall look forward to meeting your representative(s) on the day.

I would suggest that you have them “bring a toothbrush” (see VCS vs IBBOTSON (1SE09849) for details). District Judges do rather tend to take a very dim view of being lied to and having their time wasted. I can’t imagine why.

I think that probably your best (and cheapest) course of action would be to write to me one final time to notify me that all matters have been dropped by yourselves and/or the claimant and to apologise for wasting my time.

As your client has no doubt instructed you in this matter, I shall also be making a formal written complaint to the British Parking Association for your clients breach(es) of the BPA CoP for AOS members. I dare say that your client will be hearing from their trade association in due course.

I will also be writing the DVLA to raise matters with them for your clients breach of KADOE via the EDI.
 

lil ole me
Recorded Keeper of the vehicle at the time.
                                                           

 

                                                                                                                                    CC: Highview Parking.

......................

 

 

Not that the letter two matters will make the slightest bit of difference of course.

One must be realistic after all 

[DragonFly1967]

Just a quick update for this.

I've had a letter from LowLife parking this morning "rejecting my appeal" (yeah, you know, the one I never made)  

apparently, I'm "out of time".

Who knew 

At the bottom of the letter it quite clearly states:

"Registered Office: Ranger House, Queens Road, Barnet, EN5 4DJ".

 

The only problem with that is that their registered office address changed to 10 Flask Walk. London. NW3 1HE on 25th April 2019.  I can feel a complaint to Companies House coming on 

[ericsbrother]

Ranger House is the address of a person well known in the parking industry whose name does not appear as a director of this company or others he runs. He is also the best mate of Ashley Cohen who runs CEL without declaring it to CH

Why dont the powers that be take action against the dishonest when they have the information but before people lose fortunes to this kind of deceit?

[DragonFly1967]

Annnnd, an update. The saga continues.

I've had a letter from DCB Legal this morning...

 

Dear Sir

We write to you in response to your recent correspondence.

You state that 16 out of 20 Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) are flawed and that our Client is aware of this. We have consulted with our Client and they are unaware of what you are referring to.

Please clarify the reasons you dispute the debt so that this can be addressed.

And my reply, which is just about to go in the post...

Dear DCB Legal.

 

Thank you for your letter dated 31st July. And here I was labouring under the assumption that you are competent, qualified, professional solicitors.
 

Your client may have an excuse, they’re just parking snakes, but as so-called solicitors, you should know better.
 

On that note, I did not say that you’re clients were aware that 16 (now actually 18 after further research on my part) were fatally flawed. I’d be pleasantly surprised if your clients were even aware of which way was up.
 

What I actually said was…

 

“Of the 20 Highview references mentioned above, should you wish to bring a claim, as you’re the legal experts (allegedly) you should already be aware that 16 of them are fatally flawed.”
 

I’m not doing your work for you beyond suggesting that you read and inwardly digest the full contents of the Protection of Freedoms Act. Particularly Schedule 4. If you can’t work it out for yourselves and believe that you have a case, please do proceed to issue a claim. I’m looking forward to it already. Unless you work it out, that’s the only way that you’re going to see my hand.
 

If you’ve not got the guts to issue a claim, please stop writing to me (apart from answering my SAR (already sent)) as I’m getting a little fed up of wasting my time. Clearly unlike yourselves, I have far better things to be getting on with.
 

Just in case it may have escaped your attention, or intellect, I am not someone that you can bully, threaten or cajole in to paying either yourselves or your client.
 

The only way that either of you are getting even a penny out of me is to take me to court and win.
 

Good luck with that.
 

Signed, Keeper.

[dx100uk]

wrong you're...^^^^^

 

dx

[DragonFly1967]

Oh well, too late now.

 

They probably won't notice anyway, I don't think that they're that intelligent. 

[DragonFly1967]

Whoa! GAME ON!

A claim form has arrived in this mornings post.

Once they get to the stage of actually seeing my defence, I really do hope that they're that stupid & greedy that they take this to hearing.

 I can feel a grand day out coming on 

[DragonFly1967]

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, 28/07/2017, 01/09/2017, 25/10/2017, 26/07/2018, 02/02/2018, 13/03/2018, 16/04/2018, 28/05/2018, 25/06/2018, 26/06/2018, 08/08/2018, 17/08/2018, 12/09/2018, 13/09/2018.

3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract). thus incurring the PCN(s).
4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The Contract entitles C to damages.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £3000 being to total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.66 until judgement or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees.


Grammatical errors are as typed. Legal professionals indeed.

Edited September 11, 2020 by DragonFly1967

[brassnecked]

With £3000 at stake they will take this to the bitter end. and its DCBL as well doing the DCA begging.

[DragonFly1967]

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 represent them. I can see it coming. It's just a shame that they can't.

Add to that if I decide to make a counterclaim for an unspecified sum at the judges discretion and it could be a very expensive day out for Highview. Perhaps I'll send DCBL to enforce if they don't pay 

Edited September 11, 2020 by DragonFly1967

[brassnecked]

It must be oh Dragonfly has forgotten all about this and shredded the evidence, lets have another pop for a nice default.

[dx100uk]

they'll drop and run as soon as your WS lands.

 

just don't give the game away in your defence!

 

from what i've heard elsewhere....

DCB legal have issued 100's of claimforms since their arrival in the PPC speculative invoice game without the relevant clamant company even knowing they've done them!

[DragonFly1967]

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  

Each of the NtK's I have  is dated as to when it was received and noted as to whether or not an appal was made to Highview and/or POPLA, whereas most (as I said above) cripple their own case by just looking at the dates.

I also have a copy from the DVLA of when my details were accessed via KADOE, and a spreadsheet with all of the relevant data too, just for good measure  

dx. I dare say that it's the usual numbers game. Issue enough claim forms and a large percentage of people will cave and be on the phone desperate to sell them their children. At some point they'll go back to the client and say "look how many people we got to pay up, aren't we brilliant!" whilst forgetting to mention anyone that squares up and fights.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I do decide to issue a counterclaim, does that not mean that they can't just drop this, as my claim would still need to be heard? If that's right, it might just be the right thing to do, along with obtaining a transcript and publicising the hell out of it of course  

[dx100uk]

a counterclaim can be very costly and dangerous...

 

and don't forget, as long you list the docs in a 31:14, they MUST disclose such in their WS...

[brassnecked]

Agree with DX re Counterclaim, I know your game  is to force them into appearing, but they might just bail and run given a WS that utterly destroys them.

[DragonFly1967]

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.

 

Ahh no, re-read it and I have to specify a monetary value.

Shame, but I reckon it'd be worth a £35 each way bet on a £500 counterclaim, just so that they have to send someone to be humiliated.

[brassnecked]

They might cough up to avoid having it all tested in court and killing their pig for them, choking off further fleecing of people with claims of no merit whatsoever that might even border on fraudulent.