Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
    • 👍   One thing, write "unlawful", not "illegal".   Sorry to be pernickety, but "illegal" = "a crime".   "unlawful" = "not in accordance with the law".    They've lied to the DVLA but that's not actually a crime, it's misuse of your personal data which is a civil matter, and you can sue the idiots once your case is over for breach of GDPR, but it's not a criminal offence.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

UKPCM/DCB(L) 2015 ANPR PCN PAPLOC - Valley Retail Park, Hesterman Way, Croydon


Recommended Posts

Hi

I have received a number of letters (3 so far) from DCBL saying I owe £160 for parking in a disabled bay in Aug 2015 in a shopping retail park.  I don't remember anything about this ticket and I'm not aware of having done this at all.

They now say they are recommending their client takes legal action.  I haven't contacted them yet and not sure what to do about it.  Any advice please?  Thank you for your time.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are DCBL's client?  I'm guessing a private parking company, so I've moved your thread to that part of the forum.

 

You say you are not aware of doing this.  Have you moved since 2015?  Is it possible correspondence has gone to an old address?

 

It would be useful if you would upload the latest DCBL letter, redacted of any personal info.

 

 

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

If you have moved since then and or received a letter of claim you must reply. This is close to statute barred so they are phishing to see if you do or should reply and if not will advise their client to file a backdoor ccj to your old address if you have moved 

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

  • 5 months later...

Hi. I mentioned these people a few weeks back but got distracted with other life events. Now they’ve written a third time and I’m getting a bit worried. I’ve attached letter - I can’t attach it as it’s a pic on my ohone and it won’t let me??
 

we don’t remember this ticket or event or who could have been driving at the time. Apparently it was in April 2016. 
 

what should I do. I haven’t spoken or communicated with DCBL. 
 

any help would be welcome. Thanks

 

I’m loading pic to laptop to see if I can save it as different extension 

Link to post
Share on other sites

please complete this:

 

then simply follow the websites listed in our upload guide

 

redact the recent letter as a jpg then convert to PDF please.

 

 

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've had to hide your post because you've left the fleecers' reference number and the car registration showing.  Please redact these and post again.

 

Anyway the important thing is you've now got a Letter of Claim and you need to reply with a suitable snotty letter showing them you'd be big trouble if they did do court.

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

I can only find these two letters so don't know what I've done with first two but they were asking for payment, and were basically a copy of each other, just asking for payment, saying i hadn't responded to first letter etc hence the second letter.  Then we got these two (attached).

 

Nobody remembers this, either seeing a ticket or actually parking there.  If somebody borrowed the car they haven't owned up to it, and now, nearly six years later, we have no idea of this or any memory of it.

 

For a windscreen ticket (Notice To Driver) please answer the following questions....

 

 1 The date of infringement? 12/04/2016
 

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] no
 

Has there been a response? n/a
 

Have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days] I haven't seen one
 

What date is on it? n/a
 

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? n/a
 

 

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?] n/a
 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK,

did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process?

[it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances] n/a
 

5 Who is the parking company? UK Parking Control ltd
 

6. Where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? Valley Retail Park, Hesterman Way, Croydon

 

dcbl pdf merged.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

well dont disappear for another 7 mts!!

 

you MUST reply to the PAPLOC with a snotty letter within 30days.

 

well done got there...

 

they've only set this hoping you have moved so they can get a guaranteed backdoor CCJ.

 

you haven't so they can't.

 

use our enhanced google search box for

Snotty letter

 

pop your ideas up here 1st before sending to off

you have 30days from the date of the PAPLOC.

 

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to UKPCM/DCB(L) 2015 ANPR PCN PAPLOC - Valley Retail Park, Hesterman Way, Croydon

thread tidied

 

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

The SARs letters will be as follows (via emails)

 

to DCB Legal: 

(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.
(b) I have sent your client a SAR
(c) also confirm your correct 'address for service' if you've moved and the PPC has two addresses. (not relevant as they are writing to our current address)

 

to UK Parking Control Ltd:


- ALL photos taken
- all letters/emails sent and received, including any appeal correspondence earlier
- all data held, all evidence they will rely on, and a full copy of the PCN, NTK
- and a list of all PCNs outstanding against you and/or this VRN, and remind them that any claim must be for all PCNs, not several separate claims.

 

Are these OK, do I need to add anything?  Do I need to say that nobody remembers this?

 

Thank you

Edited by EveOwes
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what we had in mind.

 

The time to be sending SARs was way back in March or earlier when you first heard from them, not at the last minute when you're on the eve of a court case.

 

You need to write a snotty letter so the idiots realise (a) you haven't moved so no chance of a backdoor CCJ and (b) you're a pain in the backside who would cause them big trouble if they did do court.

 

There's a suitable snotty letter in post 32 at  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/439586-futuregladstones-anpr-pcn-paploc-funfair-bridge-st-stourport-on-severn-worcs/page/2/#comments  Obviously change things such as the addressee details and the amount of the Unicorn Food Tax,  add the PCN number and send off tomorrow to both DCBL and UKPC, otherwise you could well get a county court claim form

 

Use snail mail, not e-mail, if this does get to court, using e-mail would mean they could file documents at one minute to the deadline full of lies which it would be too late for you to counter.

 

If you want to send a SAR as well to find out what this is all about, then fine, send the SAR in a few days' time, but to UKPC only.

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

Thank you.  The instructions I read seemed to indicate that when you get the LBC with 30 days to respond then you send a SARs.

Anyway, I've taken your example and changed it a bit, as follows:

 

Dear xxx

 

I acknowledge receipt of your Letter Of Claim.  This case is being defended on the grounds that I am not aware of the existence of the PCN or of the alleged infringement.

 

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you think your client has a case.

 

Can you also break down the £160 that you are demanding - what extra costs have been incurred, and what was the amount detailed on the original invoice.

 

This alleged infringement was almost six years ago, and it's unreasonable of you to allege this after such a long time without providing anything in support of your client's claim.  I believe your additional costs are also unreasonable under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and these should be removed regardless or if this goes to court I will make a claim to have them removed.

 

Yours sincerely

name

 

copy to UK Parking Control Ltd

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you send that you will definitely be taken to court.

 

There's no reason for the fleecers not to take you to court.  You admit that you know nothing about the case and you make basic legal mistakes: they have every right to bring a case within six years;  CPR 27.14(2)(g) has got nothing to do with their inflated charges, it is a procedure used when someone loses a court case, has to pay the other party's capped costs, plus extra costs for unreasonable behaviour.  As for "without providing anything in support of your client's claim" from their point of view you've had several letters before (which you admit).  Send that and they will be straight on MCOL and in a few days you will have a county court claim

 

I pointed you in the direction of a snotty letter which was written for someone who, like you, had no information about the original "offence" and is therefore generic and suitable for use by you too.  It should be sent word for word (apart from obvious things like the addressees).  It makes you seem like someone who would just make a hole in the fleecers' pockets if they did do court.  The idea is that they will leave you in peace and go after some mug instead - although of course there are no guarantees. 

  • Like 1

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

nothere does it say ever send an sar, pretty pointless.

 

i know you've always had a habit of 'doing your own thing' since you came here, but it might now be time to actually follow our advice from now on and not try to re interpret what people actually advice.

 

its a tried and tested foolproof method of limiting your exposure to the nasty people and their ways, you open a walkway by doing something not advised, be sure as eggs the fleecers will exploit it.

 

dx

 

1 hour ago, EveOwes said:

This alleged infringement was almost six years ago

i would most def NEVER alert them to impending SB....:pound:

  • Like 1

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 haven’t done my own thing in the past and have always used your letters word for word. But this is different. It’s a pcn. I looked up snotty letters and was confused trying to find one to fit. 
 

so you want me to mock them? This isn’t Gladstone or Gladys etc it’s a different mob. I am confused. Is that a template for all the fleeces?

 

are you saying I should copy it word for word

Edited by EveOwes
Link to post
Share on other sites

its dcb(l) ..fake paper only solicitors run by dcbl lot... the TV bailiffs...even worse...:pound:

 

 

 

  2 hours ago, EveOwes said:

This alleged infringement was almost six years ago

i would most def NEVER alert them to impending SB....

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

There - the obvious changes made:

 

Dear DCBL,

 

cheers for your Letter Before Claim.  I had a good laugh at the idea you actually really thought I'd take such tripe seriously and cough up!

 

As usual you'll have done no due diligence before sending out your bilge otherwise you'd know full well your client's case is complete pants.

 

Your client has scored a big own goal by adding £60 Unicorn Food Tax.  Wooops!  Judges don't like these made-up sums, do they?

 

Your client can either drop this hopeless case or get a good kicking in court where I will go for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spend it all on a foreign holiday now that we can all travel again, while all the time laughing at your client.

 

I look forward to your deafening silence.

 

COPIED TO UK PARKING CONTROL LTD

  • I agree 2

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

ok then, I will send out the mocking letter as recommended by you guys.  I will send it first thing tomorrow to both of them by royal mail - do I need to send registered post or just next day delivery (I think I read in the snotty letter section that not to do registered post)?

 

thank you for your advice

 

PS Their letter is a Letter OF Claim, not a letter Before claim - does that make a difference? thanks

Edited by EveOwes
ps
Link to post
Share on other sites

Same thing

2nd class will do with free proof of posting at any po counter.

 

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

Hopefully you won't hear any more.

 

That's not guaranteed of course, but at least you have flagged yourself up as a troublemaker to UKPC and the hope is they'll give up on you and go for someone easier to bully.

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

What happened to the PCN form Aug 2015?

It is such a pity that that date was not the one they were chasing.

The reason being that one month later the DVLA removed them from getting motorists data because they had been

falsifying photographic evidence. 

 

There is no reason not to mention it at the appropriate time ie if they take you to Court . I am sure they would not want judges reminded of their previous history and of course how does anyone know the falsifications were still not being carried out in the following year. 

 

Leopards do not change their spots. And they have had their KADOE membership removed a second time so we will see if they set themselves up as paragons of virtue if the time comes.

 

I hope you will then change your name here to Eve owes nothing.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 15/09/2021 at 15:57, EveOwes said:

1 The date of infringement? 12/04/2016

 

i think the org thread title and post was wrong for aug 2015 its apr 2016?

 

eves can you confirm a dates mix up?

 

 

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 will need to find the original two letters. It wasn’t that long ago so they can’t have gone far 🙄

 

but nobody remembers this pcn which makes me wonder about the date. I will check. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 15/09/2021 at 15:57, EveOwes said:

I can only find these two letters so don't know what I've done with first two

 

 1 The date of infringement? 12/04/2016

dcbl pdf merged.pdf 837.61 kB · 9 downloads

these?

 

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

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...