UKPC/DCB(Legal) 11+PCNs for privately owned van used for my Ltd Co. - PAPLOC for 5, gained Default Judgement!! - Parkhorse Shopping Centre, Church St, Hudds, HD1 2RT **SET ASIDE+CLAIM DISMISSED**

[Nicky Boy]

Of course!

Shouldn't need to ask by now...

Edited April 25, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[mrk1]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We write further to your previous correspondence.

 

Please note, our client would not be agreeable to setting aside the Judgment due to the below reasons.

 

On all occasions the PCNs were physically affixed to the Vehicle putting you on notice that the Charges had been issued and the Claimant proceeded to send a Notice to Keeper and Reminder Notice for each Charge. It ought to be noted, no appeal was received upon receipt of the PCNs. It is the Claimant's position that had you genuinely believed the PCNs had been issued incorrectly, an appeal would have been made for each PCN.

 

We note you have stated you were not in receipt of the Claim Form. Respectfully, DCB Legal sent you a Letter of Claim in January 2023 and a response was received from yourself on 24/01/2023. The Claim Form was sent to the same address in which the Letter of Claim was served. In the case of Link Parking Ltd v Mr David Ian Blaney & Michael Blaney (2017), DJ Pratt stated "it seems to me, on the balance of probabilities, letter(s) do not go missing as a matter of course, and, on the balance of probabilities, [the Defendant] would have received the letter(s)".

 

Further to the above, it is submitted that only 1 PCN was issued for 'Active Loading And Unloading Only Area' the remaining 10 PCNs were issued as the Vehicle was parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit. In relation to PCN [REDACTED] which was issued for 'Active Loading And Unloading Only Area' you have failed to provide supporting evidence to confirm that you had every right to load and unload.

 

The Terms on the signs were adequate in respect of overall size, font size, plain English, location and content. It is submitted that the signs are adequate to constitute notice of the Terms.

 

In respect of the above, it is the Claimant's position that the Charges were issued correctly and the balance remains outstanding.

 

Please note, the matter is now with our sister company Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited ("DCBL"). Please ensure any further correspondence is directed to them. They can be contacted on 01606 361536.

 

If you are unsure of your position we recommend you seek independent legal advice.
 

Kind Regards,  

 

Mut 1.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I replied saying I have a letterhead from the previous management company confrimimg I had tenure (emaild off with n244) as well as we were allowed to load and unload for 30 minutes (more if neded) and that the time stamps on the pcn only show up to 7 mins. I told them to save their time and money to set aside othrwise I will be seeking financial compensation in damages!

[brassnecked]

Really should have been posted as pdf not typed into the post.

[mrk1]

Ah right. Why? 
Google search stuff? 
I can repost if it can be deleted.  

[Nicky Boy]

Shouldn't have replied as you did.

 

You're giving them information.

 

And, in answer to your question...

PDF's can only be seen by registered users (who can be verified), open text in forums can be seen by anyone.

Edited April 25, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[mrk1]

I won't speak to them again, I don't need to.

 

I will be paying the n244 today, had to call back today after they had processed it, hopefully a judge will see that, and what I have sent it in with and set aside, then I will await the new claim form and take my evidence to court and beat their ass!

[lookinforinfo]

Well at least you know what their arguments are against you.

As over 14 million letters go missing each year in Britain so yours could quite easily be one of the missing ones. Put them to strict proof that the letter was sent and point out that it was in the interest of UKPC not to have it delivered. That way they would be unopposed in Court which would be an advantage in view of the number of PCNs included as well as the unlawful addition of extra charges.

[Nicky Boy]

Doesn't the claim form get sent by the Courts?

Edited April 25, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[mrk1]

That is what I was told on here yes (claimform sent by courts).

Because obvioulsy DCBHell would clearly 'always be losing them' just before they are due to post.

I had to pay the fee, it was not £14, I was misinfrimed, it was £275.. Hopefully I can claim this back when I sue them.

[FTMDave]

They're right about the balance of probabilities - and let's hope that a judge decides that on the balance of probabilities that someone who had put massive work into building up a defence to a claim including replying to LoCs and sending SARs would not suddenly ignore a claim form.

[mrk1]

Yeah. The claim form was the final boss. To ignore that is not plausible.  The only plausible cause is I didn’t get it. 

[FTMDave]

I've just had a worry.  In the end did you send DCBL a copy of the set aside application or not?

[mrk1]

Yes. I emailed them. That’s what the the email reply above was in question to. 
I did not send them the n244 form tho. Just an email explaining they need to set aside. I was advised by Northants that I did not need to send it to them. Also advised by my local high court I did not need to send to them. 
what is the worry? 

[FTMDave]

The worry is that, being the charlatans they are, they could still enforce while the set aside application is working its way through the court machinery.

 

Plus if you haven't even copied the application to the court to them they wouldn't even be acting as charlatans, from their point of view you asked them to consent to set aside, they refused, you've done nothing since, so they can happily enforce.

 

I haven't really seen many cases like yours with both a CCJ and a writ so I'm not 100% sure, but I'd be very wary and err on the side of caution.  I really hope you don't end up paying £2700 for not CCing an e-mail.

[mrk1]

I was told by the lady in the high court (the local court) yesterday that i did not need to send the n244 to dcbhell, and that if for whatever reason these crooks come to my house I should just tell them that I have sent an aplication n244 to the high court and that they need to creep back undr their damp rocks.

[dx100uk]

or simply ignore them.

there is nothing they can do, there is no right of forced entry on civil court consumer/contract 'debts' CCJ's.

 

you should have served a copy of your N244 on your defendant, you were told to do this, but just like at every stage one way or another you always seem to manage to screw things up despite the attention and clear instruction that numerous site team and cag members give you.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

You would have thought that if they now know you are applying for a set aside that they would call off their bailiffs to avoid having to pay their charges when you win your case.

[mrk1]

I emailed them 1 week ago today. With the following title: 

 

URGENT: Set aside application - Claim form number: REDACTED  - PCN NUMBER 1/10: REDACTED. 

 

And then in the email proceeded to tell them why they Should quit now. 
 

Then on Thursday I think it was their Mut asked me to confirm my name and address. Which I did. Then they replied Monday saying they have no plans to drop

it. 
 

m Well it’s their money and time they are wasting. I have no plans to pay these dogs. I was well within my right to allow any friends or family that may have been helping me on those days and I have a letterhead from the management of the shopping centre at the time proofing my  tenure. As well as all

of the evidence on dcbhell themselves with no planning permission for signage and much more. 
 

Gurnsey will be a world super power by the time they get a penny from me (i.e NEVER). 

Edited April 25, 2023 by mrk1

[FTMDave]

18 minutes ago, lookinforinfo said:

You would have thought that if they now know you are applying for a set aside that they would call off their bailiffs

They don't know though, that is the point, mrk1 hasn't told them.

 

The mail he is going on about was to ask them to consent to set aside, and they refused.

 

They have never seen the subsequent N244.

 

Anyway, up to him what he does.

 

 

[mrk1]

I told them. 
I said in 24 hours I’ll be applying for a set aside.  

[brassnecked]

Tell them it has gone in now

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks for the heads up FTM.

[mrk1]

Tell them it has been sent. Yes I will.  

[dx100uk]

hey..

why not send them a copy of the n244 huh?

like you should have done.......

dx

[mrk1]

I was told by Northants and local high court I didn’t need to and that they would be doing it.