Jump to content


CP+/DCB(L) PCN Claimform - Services Roadchef Magor - but i paid!


Recommended Posts

If that works there is a good chance of using GDPR against the fleecers for wrongful access to DVLA for details  to hit them for a monkey (£500)  Fact you spoke to DCBL immaterial the data had already been wrongfully obtained as you paid.  See what others reckon about it.

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

When you come to do your WS don't forget to claim for £500 for breaching your GDPR. They had no reason to ask DVLA for your details. You had paid. You owed them nothing. It's not your fault that their system and their accounts department is rubbish.

 

Pretty much like Gladstones solicitors which has an account where they place money but they have failed to identify people who have paid money owed  to  clients of Gladstones. The account holds over £100,000 that has been paid to th Gladstones and is just sitting there because Gladstones records are  useless. It presumably doesn't stop them from pursuing some of those unidentified people who have paid. Nice work if you can get it. They are being investigated by their Regulators the SRA. 

Here is the case

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/559050/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

How about this....short and sweet.....

 

The prescribed fee was paid by the driver at the time so no breach of contact has occurred.

 

The defendant has the parking receipt issued via bank statement as the fee was paid using a debit card at the correct pay point and the claimant has known this from the outset.

 

The defendant invites the court to use its management powers to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4 as the claim is vexatious and order a full costs recovery order under CPR 27.12.2(g) should the matter go further"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where our 3-5 line generic defence ftmdave pointed you too says that.    

 

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

Does this look better? Sorry but I'm a bit struggling here as never done one of these before

 

1.  It is admitted that Defendant Was the recorded keeper of AO16XXX

 

2.   As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.  The proper claimant is the landowner

 

3.  It is denied that the Defendant breached any terms and conditions set on private land.

 

4.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant, or broke any such contract.

 

5.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks OK, its hit them with receipts etc at WS stage, then they can either carry on and get trashed or bail out and discontinueat which point you as Keeper might have GDPR claim agaist 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

On 29/11/2021 at 13:33, PoolerBoy said:

date to submit Defence - 27-12-21

Plenty of time for others to check 

 

dont file early

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Morning all

 

Im going to put my defence in this week as above.

 

I have had a response from DCBL to the CPR which I have uploaded. They also sent a letter of authorisation from MOTO dated Dec last year. They also sent a load of photos for a completely different Service station lol.

 

Can someone pleas have a look and advise me?

 

Thanks

 

 

DCBL Letter Reposnse to CPR Redacted.pdf DCBL Repsonse to Services Authority.pdf.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

DCBL are correct that they will have to provide all the evidence they have in the Witness Statement that will come soon.

The Witness Statement from Moto will not be acceptable in Court should it get that far. There needs to be a proper contract. 

Bit of a non event. I expect the WS will be the usual claptrap designed to mislead the Court. but Judges are not often fooled.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

CCA where are you getting that from? THe consumer credit act plays no part in private parking speculative invoice contract claims.

 

your defence is not due till the 27th....as ive already said...above post

 

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

there is no need to send an sar to anyone.

 

21 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

DCBL are correct that they will have to provide all the evidence they have in the Witness Statement that will come soon.

The Witness Statement from Moto will not be acceptable in Court should it get that far. There needs to be a proper contract. 

Bit of a non event. I expect the WS will be the usual claptrap designed to mislead the Court. but Judges are not often fooled.

 

 

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

Fellow Site Team member @Andyorch has brought up that it is unreasonable for the PPC to delay suing you for four years in order to add a huge amount of interest to the claim.  Apparently the standard is a year's interest.  So change your (5) to (6) and stick in a new (5), something like -

 

5.  The Claimant's invoice/PCN was issued nearly four years ago and it is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation and claim nearly four years' interest.

 

With that added the defence is good to go.

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

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...