Jump to content


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


Recommended Posts

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.

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

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.

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

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 👍

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

Do the PPC even know DCBL have issued a claim?

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.

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. 😜

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

counterclaiming costs are not just yours...

you could be liable for their barrister fees even if you win.

 

 

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

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.

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

i pretty sure once you issue a counterclaim, even in the small claims track , the gloves are then off...??.

 

 

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

I might pop in to the Bristol Justice Centre on Monday for a spot of advice then. Best to check I suppose 👍

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

Yes get those ducks in a row DCBL might chuck the kitchen sink in with a Counterclaim if it screws their model up.

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

This is hilarious.  Are they seriously suing you for tickets that have been cancelled by POPLA appeals?  Surely they will discontinue at WS stage.

 

I remember you posting about Highview before.  IIRC the tickets are for not displaying a permit although in some of their photos, er, the permit is displayed!  Is that right?  If so, as an alternative to a counterclaim, once you've batted away this claim you could start to sue them for breaches of GDPR, either a mega claim for all the tickets, or one at a time to keep torturing 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once they have been tolchocked and claim dismissed as frivolous and vex due to POPLA etc, the GDPR angle is a good one, as never any reason to apply for details at all.

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

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.

 

 

Untitled-8a.jpg

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 "PATRONS ONLY" :D 
 

IMG-20170424-WA0001.jpg

 

But, on the GDPR (or DPA 1998 as it was at the relevant time), after I received the very first ticket from highview, for a parking event on 24/09/2016, I wrote to them to point out that the driver (not me by the way) worked at the shopping centre, the vehicle displayed a staff parking permit, and the driver thereby had supremacy of contract. 

The "appeal" (which it wasn't) was of course denied, and a POPLA code was issued. Appeal made to POPLA, highview withdrew for, and this is the reason they gave to POPLA "After further investigation we have decided to cancel this notice".

Of course, while this was going on, I was still getting the NtK reminders, and I think at least one letter from DRP. And lately, DCBL also issuing a demand for payment, and now DCB (il)Legal are (threatening to) take me to court and the above example is one of the 20 tickets that they're claiming.

There are 3 others that have been won at POPLA and 16 that arrived outside of the time from allowed by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4. Paragraph 9, sub paragraph 5.

But DCB (il)Legal don't seem to actually care about what the law says, they're just seeing £ signs in their eyes. I've even told them that they have no case and to check the full facts of the case with their client, but apparently, they were either uninterested, or (more likely) too greedy to listen.

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

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.

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

Looks like best plan there DF., there is then also Data protection breach if claim was unfounded due to POPLA and obvious display of permit in their evidence contradicting their own POC..

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

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
 

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

proof of annual contract premium paid to date from managing agent/landowner to the PPC.

 

don't forget a CPR can be all but ignored, forcing them to disclose such at the WS stage is the key.

 

 

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

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. 👍

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

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.

 

Quote

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.

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 😉

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

well ofcourse they will have to disclose the contract and proof of annual payment to date and covering to date 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

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 ;) 

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

or its expired and nobody has bothered to boot the fleecers off.

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

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...