Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Could you please show the back of the first PCN you received round about 17th January. Was there a WS included or just the PE v Beavis case?
    • Hey have filed a defence at 4pm today the day before I could request a judgement.  I thought it was last Friday but it was infact tomorrow they would have ran out of time 
    • Hello All,   My query is about the Service charge. I am leaseholder of a 3 bed flat in a purpose build block in London (Westminster) our service charge used to reflect the maintenance of the building and overall look and feel. But now not only service charge goes up every year but quality of service like general maintenance gone down. For example lifts keep breaking down, building needs refurb, walls are dirty, my windows are so old that in winter no matter how much heating you put on room still feel cold.    additionally they keep adding major works charges to service charge with this year being £1917 in addition to £1890 service charge. Don’t mind paying only if I see improvement in the block but we have only seen steady decline over many years now. So today I called them (city of Westminster) saying I don’t want to pay and cannot pay so high charges where there’s no evident results.    I came here to find if anyone has been successful in negotiations on regards to service charges complain or any advice regarding this. Charges are too for what we get    Thanks in advance  
    • this is going to be really simplistic, but have they started by talking to senior management now the bad apple has gone?
    • Hi everyone  . . .  Just an update   The CMD was this morning.  It started with cheap  manoeuvrability  by Intrum’s lawyer, but let me give you quick summery background:   The judge issued an order to us to submit evidence supporting our case such as call for witnesses or ask the court to order the original creditor to some action.  We were giving 21 days for the submission.  In my simple calculation without, allowing time to post, the final date was to be 10 March 2021, with post time 2 days later.   On the 10th March, and to be on the safe side, I send to the court the response version giving to me by DX100UK.   Then on 12th March, I send to the court the version giving to me by Andy, asking the court to replace the first document with the second  one.   On 7th of April I send Intrum lawyer the document 2 as it is our official response.   ON the 12th April I send the court the medical certificate for my niece asking to be viewed exclusively by the court.   At the start of the CMD the Judge ask Intrum lawyer to start.  So he started by claiming the following: 1.    We failed to meet the 21 days deadline set by the court. 2.    He received a response on the 7th April which is only a week ago. 3.    He admitted that he has the two version of our submission. He claimed that they were collected by colleague of his from the court’s Clark while he was in court. 4.    He said that this case has taken too long and the defendant just messing them about and keeping changing their plea.   At that time the judge announced that he does not have the two documents in the case file. He only has the medical certificate.  Then he turned to me to ask me for explanation. a)    I said that we met the deadline set by the court and submitted the required response.  Also I explained the issue with two documents. b)    I confirmed that we have received a confirmation form the court on their receipt of  my submission emails. c)    I stated that Intrum lawyer’s claim is incorrect that we failed to meet the deadline, and pointed out that he has our two documents in his possession which he obtained from the court.   Then the judge started asking Intrum lawyer on the content of the two documents, which is bizarre not to ask the author of the documents.   Intrum Lawyer stated that the two documents almost identical. He then started pointing out the negative sides in the documents such as our change of the 50% settlement.  He continued claiming that we are changing our defence without following the certain set procedure, which it seemed to confuse the judge. The lawyer  continued to ridicule the document in general without being specific.  At the end the judge turned to me  to response.   I said that the court must see the document as it is important to the case.  It is not correct to ask the lawyer to a brief the court on our document as he has been selective in what to read.  The judge came in and said that he asked the lawyer for a general summery of its content.   I continued that the full claim case is fundamentally flawed, and I continued to list why: 1.    The nature of the relation between the original creditor and defendant does not constitute the need for Financial Agreement between the two parties.  The claimant stated in their case that the defendant was in breach of a Financial Agreement. Where is this agreement? 2.    There is no Default Notice that the claimant stated in their submission there was a Default  Notice. 3.    Also has the original creditor served a notice of assignment on the defendant? 4.    The other fundamental issue is the question of the nature of the sum claimed!. .  .  .  . . .   At that time the judge stopped me asked me if I was asking for the other side to present these documents.   I responded:  Intrum are experienced organisation in this type of business.  They know very well the importance of these documents to the case, why they have not been  incorporated them in their case submission , . .  my answer Yes  . . . our missing response document put the claimant to Strict Proof to present these documents to the court.   The lawyer then announced that the Default Note was included in their submission and, he continued to quote a reference number, then he retracted his claim, which is I had a sense that he felt he has gone too far in his BS***t.   However, the judge spend most of session faltering and does not know what to say.  At the end he decided to go for another CMD. But then the funny part he asked the Claimant lawyer to send him the two missing documents.   I feel more positive now on the case but I would appreciate your views and comments.   Thank you
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

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


Recommended Posts

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 😆

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Thanks BF. OK, the final update on this saga. Partial Success. Not exactly the outcome I wanted, but it is what it is 🙄  This ended up as a telephone hearing because of the virus, which also

Posted Images

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by DragonFly1967

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragonfly

Need to let us know how you get on. I'm expecting similar soon with more than 4 years of hounding from these clowns. I'm north of the border so a little harder for them to threaten anything other than a bit of flag waving so cant wait for the letter drop :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello DF

 

VV you need to update your existing thread if you have a letter of claim please..

 

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

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 12th 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.

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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! 😉

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 😉 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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 🤔

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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 😗

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Oh well, too late now.

 

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

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

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 🤣

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by DragonFly1967

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to Highview/DCBLe 20*PCNs PAPLOC now Claimform

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

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

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 by DragonFly1967

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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!

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

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 :D 

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 :) 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

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

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.

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
  • dx100uk changed the title to Highview/DCBLe 20*PCNs PAPLOC now Claimform - Yate Shopping Centre - Main Car Park.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...