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

[Intrepid]

Another letter received from DCBL attached below.

UKPC - DCBL - Letter 09.08.22 - Redacted.pdf

[FTMDave]

As you say, a similar company to DRP - another third party with no power to do anything.

 

Hot air from paper tigers.

 

Laugh at them then ignore.

[Intrepid]

Attached below and provided by the Solicitors Regulation Authority is the response to the report they received concerning CST Law.

 

My intial reaction is that their response is inadequate.

 

It appears in their reponse they have only considered the Parking Code of Practice 2022 and given no weight or consideration to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

UKPC - CST Law - SRA Response 01.09.22 - Redacted.pdf

[FTMDave]

Well, these are all old boys networks.  The fleecers are legally challenging the government CoP over the Unicorn Food Tax so she's "right" on that, but as you say she's also conveniently totally ignored PoFA.

 

The important thing is to not pay a penny to UKPC and come back here immediately if you get a Letter of Claim.

 

 

[Intrepid]

I intend to respond to the SRA's inadequate response.

 

Below is a draft of what I have written.

If there are any further issues I should raise or better ways of making my points then suggestions are gratefully received.

I am under no illusion that an investigation officer is unlikley to have the integrity to stand up for what is right but certainly their bias should not go unanswered.

 

Quote

Dear Sir/Madam,
 

On 18th June 2022 a report, attached for your convenience, was submitted to the SRA regarding Credit Style Limited.
 

On 1st September 2022 your investigation officer responded to my report, attached for your convenience.
 

The contents of the response from the investigation officer is inadequate, incomplete and as a result I request that my report is reviewed in full by someone willing to consider the entirety of the report.
 

 

The investigation officer referred to the fact the Parking Code of Practice 2022 is currently withdrawn.
 

The investigation officer made a material error of fact in conflating that the Parking Code of Practice 2022 is the only legislation which makes any reference to additional fees.
 

While the Parking Code of Practice 2022 is currently withdrawn, paragraph 9 is wholly consistent with the existing Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
 

In lieu of the Parking Code of Practice 2022 the de-facto position on additional fees remains that outlined by the Supreme Court as referenced by the remarks of District Judge Jones-Evans included within my report.
 

Rather than being an "unrelated" case the remarks of District Judge Jones-Evans are entirely relevant as they set out the exact reasons upon which CST Law has breached The Principles.
 

The investigation officer failed entirely to consider the relevance of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and in particular where Schedule 4 Paragraph 4 (5) outlined below.
 

"The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified)."

 

It is noteworthy that agents of the parking industry including the solicitors they instruct are readily referring to the Parking Code of Practice 2022 within their legal proceedings.
 

I gratefully seek clarification as to what exactly is the position of the SRA.
 

Is the Parking Code of Practice 2022 in force or not?
 

Can the parking industry have it both ways, the Parking Code of Practice 2022 is relevant when they wish to bring an action but not relevant when their practices are under review by the SRA?
 

I look forward to receiving a full response to my report by an investigation officer willing to take the time to fully address all the facts presented in my report.
 

Yours faithfully.

 

 

[Intrepid]

Another letter received from DCBL.

UKPC - DCBL - Letter 06.09.22 - Redacted.pdf

[brassnecked]

Another Threatogram.

[Intrepid]

Another letter received from DCBL.

UKPC - DCBL - Letter 03.10.22 - Redacted.pdf

[FTMDave]

More pointless deforestation.

 

Ignore.

[Intrepid]

Response received from the SRA in reply to my complaint.

I remain concerned that the SRA is content for a third party to instruct solicitors over a speculative invoice over which they have no right of action.

Presumably if I attempted to instruct solicitors to enforce a speculative invoice sent by my friend Clive to Peter who lives down the road, any reputable solicitor would laugh me out of their office, however the authority trusted with regulating these bunch of cowboys are content to sit idle on the side lines while this all takes place.

My understanding is that for a DCA to be able to instruct solicitors and thus issue a claim, there has to be a signed contract between the original creditor and debtor pursuant to the CCA 1974 which amongst everything else details the rights of the creditor to reassign the alleged debt.

This of course has no applicability to any dispute over alleged parking arrangements.

 

UKPC - CST Law - SRA Response 25.10.22 - Redacted.pdf

Edited October 31, 2022 by Intrepid

[AndyOrch]

Topic open

[Intrepid]

Attached below is the letter of claim received from DCB Legal.

My proposed response:

 

Sent to: DCB Legal Limited, UK Parking Control Limited
 

Dear Yasmin and Jamie,
 

Letter Before Claim
 

1.    I write in reference to your letter dated 20 February 2023.
 

2.    You know, that I know, that you know that UK Parking Control Limited (‘UKPC’) has knowingly inflated the sum they wish to claim as alluded to in your letter which provides no breakdown of the sum claimed.
 

3.    If you insist on pursuing such a claim on behalf of UKPC I will make a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority concerning the fact a registered solicitor is knowingly aiding an inflated and vexatious claim in defiance of a binding decision made by the Court of Appeal.
 

4.    Should UKPC proceed with their claim I will seek an order that my costs are paid by UKPC on an indemnity basis pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g).
 

Background
 

5.    UKPC have already had their access to the Keeper of Date of Event (‘KADOE’) database, which stores information relating to the keeper of vehicles, suspended twice and on one occasion for falsifying photographic evidence.
 

6.    UKPC’s history of falsifying evidence brings in to doubt the reliability of any evidence they may later choose to present to a court and undermines their credibility as a witness.
 

The Claim
 

7.    UKPC had no reasonable cause to request my personal data from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (‘DVLA’) on XX XX 2022.
 

8.    UKPC are in breach of their data protection obligations pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018 and their breach has caused me distress.
 

9.    I will forward any judgment to both the Information Commissioner’s Office and the DVLA following which UKPC may risk having its access to the KADOE database permanently withdrawn.
 

Next Steps
 

10.    I look forward to your deafening silence in reference to UKPC's claim and further look forward to receiving satisfactory compensation for the distress UKPC has caused to me within 14 days.

Yours sincerely,

 

UKPC - DCBL - Letter 20.02.23 - Redacted.pdf

Edited March 5, 2023 by Intrepid

[Nicky Boy]

Intrepid,

 

You're giving far too many clues about how you might defend against their rubbish claim.

 

At this stage, you just need to send a vague "snotty letter" to let them know you'd be trouble in court.

 

This sometimes works, and they don't follow up.

 

Look around the forum for examples of snotty letters, then post a draft up here for the guys to vet.

[brassnecked]

Nick Boy is absolutely correct you are giving them ammunition to concoct ways round any defence that has merit with deceit and misleading information.

[Intrepid]

Claim form received (attached).
AOS completed via MCOL.
CPR 31.14 request sent by post.
 

Which Court have you received the claim from? MCOL Northampton N1

 

Name of the Claimant:UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED

 

Claimants Solicitors:DCB LEGAL Limited

 

Date of issue:24 March 2023

 

Date for AOS:12 April 2023

 

Date to submit Defence:26 April 2023

 

What is the claim for:
1. The Defendant(D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at 1 To 21 The Martletts crawley,west Sussex,rh10 1er

2. The PCN details are 07/12/2021, XXXX

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 didnot. 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. £160 being the 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 £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

Amount Claimed: £177.72

Court fee: £35

Legal rep fees: £50

Total Amount: £262.72

UKPC - Court - Claim Form 24.03.23 - Redacted.pdf

[FTMDave]

OK, well done on AOS and CPR.

 

Did you reply to their LoC in the end?

[Intrepid]

Yes, I replied as per post #63 above.

[FTMDave]

The fleecers must be barking to take this one to court given their pathetic case.

 

Then again, I suppose, never underestimate the greed of a private parking company.

 

You've obviously done your homework re AOS and CPR, just remember to file the defence a couple of days before the deadline.

[brassnecked]

The LOC going to them might focus their tiny minds.

[Intrepid]

DSAR sent to UKPC.

Complaint regarding DCB Legal submitted to the SRA.

 

Quote

On 8 January 2022 UK Parking Control issued a speculative invoice which is in dispute for £100.

 

On 24 March 2023 DCB Legal Limited issued a claim on behalf of their client UK Parking Control Limited for £177.72, comprised of a sum of £160 plus £17.72 interest.

 

DCB Legal are expected to uphold the constitutional principle of the rule of law.

 

DCB Legal 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.

 

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.

 

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 lawit is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''.

 

The complicit act of DCB Legal to issue a knowingly inflated claim in defiance of the ruling issued by the Court of Appeal is fundamentally dishonest and lacks all of the integrity expected by a firm regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

 

The action taken by DCB Legal undermines the public's trust and confidence in the solicitor's profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Intrepid

[FTMDave]

46 minutes ago, Intrepid said:

DSAR sent to UKPC.

Can't harm you, but, er, why?  You already have the paperwork.

 

46 minutes ago, Intrepid said:

Complaint regarding DCB Legal submitted to the SRA.

Again, can't harm you, but the SRA won't give a monkey's.

[Intrepid]

1. I want to know what data UKPC hold on me and how it has been processed including with which parties they have shared the data.

2. I wrote to DCB Legal informing them I would and have followed through.

I agree, the SRA are de facto complicit with the abuse of the court system by the private parking industry. I expect the only thing that would cause the SRA to take any notice would be if it was to reflect upon them negatively in some way through some sort of press coverage.

[FTMDave]

OK, understood!

[Intrepid]

Defence and Counterclaim submitted, particulars below.

 

Quote

1.       On XXXX the Defendant accessed my personal data held by the Driver and Vehicle License Agency (“DVLA”) without reasonable cause.

2.       The Defendant unlawfully processed my personal data in order to issue a claim against me in the County Court which is wholly without merit.

3.       The Defendant's failure to comply with their obligations pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018 has caused me distress, including anger and frustration resulting from the Defendant’s non-compliance.

4.       I seek damages for distress £1000.00

 

[FTMDave]

I'm not sure counterclaiming was a great idea.