UKPC/DCB Legal Windscreen PCN PAPLOC now Claimform - 1 to 21 The Martletts, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1ER **Claim dismissed, counterclaim dismissed**

[brassnecked]

That letter also seems to be underhand coercion by pretending to be helpful in deciding to pay.

[Intrepid]

Under GDPR Article 14. DRP have the following obligations (and the list continues):

1. Where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject, the controller shall provide the data subject with the following information:

 (a) the identity and the contact details of the controller and, where applicable, of the controller’s representative;
 (b) the contact details of the data protection officer, where applicable;

 (c) the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the processing;

I am not entirely clear who exactly 1 (a) refers to, whether it be the details of the controller where the data originated, from whom it was received or the controller of DRP themselves.

DRP have only provided the details of the DVLA indicating they have applied for and obtained my data from the DVLA, hence why I have sent a SAR to the DVLA to confirm whether this is actually the case.

 

I don't think merely providing the details of the DVLA satisfies 1 (a) particularly, if as you state and as I also expect, they received the data from UKPC, but I am happy to be corrected on this point.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Letter received 17/03/2022 from DRP below.

UKPC - DRP - Letter 17.03.22 - Redacted.pdf

 

Reply received from UKPC in response to the letter as per comment #21 here.

 

UKPC - UKPC reply to letter 03.03.22 - Redacted.pdf

[FTMDave]

DRP have no power as it's not their debt.

 

Usual tripe from UKPC who won't have even read your letter.  Ignore them now unless you get a Letter of Claim.

[Intrepid]

In order to request information regarding the keeper of a vehicle from the KADOE system the enquirer must provide a copy of agreement between the landowner and the car parking company.

DRP indicate they applied for my data however no such agreement can exist between them and the landowner and therefore their application is unlawful.

If the DVLA confirms DRP did apply for keeper data then DRP have breached the Data Protection Act in requesting the data and the DVLA have acted unlawfully by providing it.

If the data was passed to them by UKPC then DRP have unlawfully indicated that the DVLA was the controller that provided the data when it was in fact UKPC.

Edited April 2, 2022 by Intrepid

[FTMDave]

Where have you got the idea that DRP applied for your data?

 

DRP are just imbeciles who send "threatening" (ho! ho!) standard letters out on behalf of their clients which include the private parking companies.

[dx100uk]

[Intrepid]

Article 14 of GDPR - Information to be provided where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject

1. Where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject, the controller shall provide the data subject with the following information:

 

a) the identity and the contact details of the controller and, where applicable, of the controller’s representative;

b) the contact details of the data protection officer, where applicable;

c) the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the processing;

d) the categories of personal data concerned;

e) the recipients or categories of recipients of the personal data, if any;

If you read the letter sent by DRP it only provides the information of the DVLA as the data controller, so either they applied for the data from the DVLA or they have failed to indicate that the true provider of the data to them is UKPC.

Edited April 3, 2022 by Intrepid

[lookinforinfo]

The DVLA  accept that the BPA [amazingly  and [ even more amazing] the IPC as having  Codes of Practice that comply with all necessary legal requirements. Therefore  members of the two associations do not need to provide anything but a request for driver's details based often on a quasi reasonable cause of any breach.

 

DRP are members of the BPA which is even more a reflection of the standards of the BPA who cannot even keep up with current legislation.

[Intrepid]

Another letter from DRP, attached below.

UKPC - DRP - Letter 01.04.22 - Redacted.pdf

[FTMDave]

Laugh at them and ignore it.

[Intrepid]

Another letter from DRP, attached below.

UKPC - DRP - Letter 24.04.22 - Redacted.pdf

[FTMDave]

More laughing and more ignoring.

[lookinforinfo]

The new Private Code of Practice  says this about Debt Recovery Agents [aka lying scumbags]

 

E.3 Wording used by debt recovery agents (DRAs)

The principle of engaging a DRA where the creditor and their customer are unable to achieve a satisfactory conclusion, especially when standard appeals/arbitration protocols have been exhausted, is established, but must be on the basis that the DRA’s role is to strive to come to an arrangement (debt resolution) not simply enforcement (debt recovery). While a minority of cases might still need to be settled at Court it is important that in making the customer (driver/keeper) aware of the implications of non-payment (including, should the Court find against them, the risk to their credit rating.

DRAs must not use terms which would mislead the average consumer or make them reach a decision that they might not otherwise have made – such terms include the list in E.2 and the following:

• summons
• justice
• prosecution
• excessive use of “County Court judgement” (CCJ)
• calling round
• earnings attachment or
• bankruptcy.

Nor should DRAs use terms that:

• imply that they are writing from a legal or litigation department or team
• imply that they have a formal role in adjudication
• refer to pre-action protocol at a point when they are not yet using it
• threaten an in-person visit
• misrepresent whether the timing for appeal has expired

This is not an exhaustive list.

[brassnecked]

The DRP letter falls foul of those stipulations in E.3, also are they actually permitted to offer an installment plan with out falling foul of Finance conduct Authority.?

[Intrepid]

I've made a complaint to the ICO regarding DRP's failures under GDPR Article 14, it will take several weeks even months to receive a reply but when they do I will post up what they come back with.

[Intrepid]

Letter from CST Law attached below.

UKPC - CST Law - Letter 24.05.22 - Redacted.pdf

[FTMDave]

Yet more laughing and yet more ignoring.

[Intrepid]

I am in the process of bringing a complaint to the SRA regarding CST Law.

Below is the proposed details of the complaint.

If anyone can see an improvement to the wording or the contents then any improvement is gratefully received.

 

Quote

CST Law sent me a letter dated 24th May 2022 (attached for your convenience).

The contact and letter is in breach of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th principle of “The Principles”.

 

CST Law indicate they have been instructed by their client Debt Recovery Plus.

 

CST Law have taken instruction from a third party which has no claim or rights in respect of the on-going and unresolved dispute between myself and UK Parking Control Limited.

 

CST Law are expected to uphold the constitutional principle of the rule of law.

 

CST Law have breached their duty by knowingly inflating a claim in direct breach of the Private Parking Code of Practice 2022.

 

CST Law appear to have deliberately taken instruction from a third party in an attempt to circumvent and deliberately inflate the claimed sum which is vastly in excess of the amount in dispute between myself and UK Parking Control Limited, named in their letter.

 

CST Law's acceptance of instruction and communication is fundamentally dishonest and lacks all of the integrity expected by a firm regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

 

CST Law's dishonest action undermines the public's trust and confidence in the solicitor's profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.

 

[FTMDave]

Well done on giving these utter charlatans some well-earned hassle.

 

You could enlarge one paragraph -

 

CST Law have breached their duty by knowingly inflating a claim in direct breach of the Private Parking Code of Practice 2022 as well as Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

- as it's not just the new Code of Practice which outlaws the Unicorn Food Tax, all along they were never supposed to be able to add anything over the original £100.

 

It's not your case but you could also point out that they encourage and agree to frivolous cases with no basis in law in the hope that the other party will be ignorant of the law and will pay.  An example is cases where a motorist has paid but has input a single digit of a registration number wrongly.  Judges have riled that such a mistake is "de minimis" on multiple occasions yet CST Law still pursue these frivolous cases.

[Intrepid]

Thank you FTMDave,

 

I have borrowed from your recent post as I think directly referencing a judge's comments highlighting the abuse of process should substantiate the complaint but will keep the scope of the complaint insomuch as it applies to myself.

 

Below is an updated proposal.
 

Quote

CST Law sent me a letter dated 24th May 2022 (attached for your convenience).

The contact and letter is in breach of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th principle of “The Principles”.

 

CST Law indicate they have been instructed by their client Debt Recovery Plus.

 

CST Law have taken instruction from a third party which has no claim or rights in respect of the on-going and unresolved dispute between myself and UK Parking Control Limited.

 

CST Law are expected to uphold the constitutional principle of the rule of law.

 

CST Law have breached their duty by knowingly inflating a claim in direct breach of the Private Parking Code of Practice 2022 as well as Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

CST Law appear to have deliberately taken instruction from a third party in an attempt to circumvent and deliberately inflate the claimed sum which is vastly in excess of the amount in dispute between myself and UK Parking Control Limited, named in their letter.

Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio.

An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 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 v 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 is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''.

 

CST Law's acceptance of instruction and communication is fundamentally dishonest and lacks all of the integrity expected by a firm regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

 

CST Law's dishonest action undermines the public's trust and confidence in the solicitor's profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Letter received from DCBL attached below.

UKPC - DCBL - Letter 18.07.22 - Redacted.pdf

[FTMDave]

Hot air from an uninvolved third party paper tiger.  Have a laugh at it and ignore.

[lookinforinfo]

So rather than answer your letter to CST, UKPC change their legal reps. I wonder if you slag DCBL off you would get another legal rep. Sooner rather than later they would run out of disreputable solicitors to act for them. No self respecting solicitor would touch them with a

bargepole. They have been banned from accessing the DVLA data twice now-once was for falsifying photographic evidence.

[Intrepid]

For clarity I never wrote to CST Law.

 

The SRA are currently working on the report they received.

 

The ICO responded to my complaint stating that because DRP are a processor and not a controller they are not subject to the articles I referred to within the GDPR.

I'm not really sure what DCBL are, they do not appear to be solicitors but simply another version of DRP, only named as such in the hope that some people will incorrectly believe they are subject to enforcement action.