Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Not really. His claim will succeed simply because its a simple matter of a lost parcel and no insurance. Its not a complex case so I think he’ll be fine, especially as it is P2G who arent very good at defending claims but I ageee its not been handled at all well.   My only concern with withdrawing is that he loses £35 in the case of £240 but thats a matter for him   I dont think it has a reduced chance of success if OP actually replies and actions things but if not then ofcourse it will struggle.   My concern is if he starts again it’ll be just as sporadic.   Maybe close thread and let him make a new one if hes ready to engage?
    • Please will you start reading up on the stories on the some form especially the pinned post. I have to say that I'm concerned that you feel that a warning from P2G is going to affect your rights and is going to subvert statutory law. I think you've been here for a few months and I would have hoped that by now you would understand that terms and conditions must always be interpreted in the light of overriding statute. Also I suggested that once you have done the reading on the sub- forum then you would understand the information that we would need in order to give you the best help. The fact that you haven't told us what the item was suggested also that you haven't done the reading. Please give us full details including identity of the item, value, where these properly declared? Dates – blah blah blah. Not paying attention to P2G. Pay attention to us
    • P2G can make clear whatever they want frankly, the judge isnt going to sit there and go “they told you to buy their insurance and you didn’t” and then dismiss your claim.  I would say you should send a formal complaint then after 7 days sent a LOC. Day 21 from now submit your claim on OCMC.    
    • I thought i could just use ( copy and paste)  the terminology from my other post earlier in the year when i previously claimed against P2g .   The parcel hasnt been 'officially ' lost yet i have another 13 days before their 'investigation' ends and then theyll probably offer the postage back as i didnt take the 'insurance'   But to recap ,  The parcel was booked through P2g and sent with Evri. No Protective Insurance was taken out. The parcels value is only £48 plus postage of £3 and the value of the parcel was declared The parcels tracking says while it was in Evri's system it was sent to an 'incorrect' depot and tracking would be updated in 24 hrs which it didnt and the delivery date passed, i then had a live chat with P2g who opened an investigation and im waiting to hear what's happened. My only concern is,  last time i claimed P2g made it clear that in future i must take out their protective insurance which i gavent and im wondering whether this will ' complicate' things ...  
    • it is precisely for these reasons that the OP should withdraw the claim and begin again. Firstly, the case has been badly handled from the start. The OP hasn't come to us and stuck to it in a regular engaging way. Secondly, it seems that the OP is now being advised on the basis of it being a matter of principle rather than looking at a sensible and pragmatic outcome. We have a duty to the people who come to help us to try and get the best solution for them that we can. Secondary is that we want to notch up a further victory against the parcel delivery industry – and frankly it doesn't matter which company it is as long as we get a victory. If we simply urge someone to continue a case at their own expense in a claim which has a very reduced chance of success, simply because it gives us personal satisfaction, then this is really contrary to what we do and certainly contrary to the interests of the claimant. I'm now urging the OP (Original Poster) to withdraw and to start again and work with us very closely in order to get a much more certain victory. By continuing this claim, not only with the OP risk even more money, it will take more time in the sense of failure will be demoralising. Better to feel that one is in control by exercising one's own choices and taking the long view
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

UKPCL/DCB PCN +£300 CCJ - ignored everything - McDonald's Albert Docks, Liverpool


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 308 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello,


This post is on behalf of my father who has received two letters from "dcbl - direct collection Bailiffs LTD'


To my knowledge he overstayed on a McDonald's car park and has since received TWO letters from DCBL which he IGNORED and then a third letter which appears to be a CLAIM FORM but he wasn't sure if the claim form looked legitimate or not because you can normally see the dried ink from the stamp on the paper but on this claim form it looks like a stamp has been photocopied on?

If you experienced people could try and confirm if this 'claim form' is actually real that would be great or is it just another futile attempt by these con men to make you cough up the money?

He has made no contact with anybody regarding the PCN and has ignored every bit of correspondence to come through the door. He's never admitted to anybody who the driver was either.

Thanking you all in advance

I've attached the redacted correspondence too for everybody to look at
Great stuff thanks again 

 

(JUST A QUICK UPDATED PIECE OF INFORMATION - DCBL have sent three of their letters out altogether and he's had about five letters from the original PPC which he wasn't sure of the company name? He's IGNORED ALL CORRESPONDENCE from the start)

 

claimform + pre+post DCB(l) letters.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi HB,

Yes if you download my link in the first post it'll show you the 'Claim Form' he's received from the County Court Business Centre with a Claim Number beginning with K eight characters long. But we weren't sure if the claim form was legitimate or not? The stamp on the paper didn't look authentic. Are we able to check if this claim form is real? The Issue date was April 2023 so we've left it for 3 months now

Link to post
Share on other sites

While your father's attitude to these charlatans is laudable, the way he's gone about it is not.  There are times to ignore and times to jump into gear.  You should never ignore court papers.

He hasn't defended the claim by the deadline shown on the papers so he's lost the case by default.  There is no way of rescuing the situation.  There has to be a serious reason shown to the court to set aside a judgement and ignoring court papers isn't one.

He has also defied the court and not paid within the 30 days fixed by the court.  That means he's got a CCJ and a knackered credit file for six years.  Again, there is no escape route.  Even if he pays the CCJ will remain.

The one saving grace is that the fleecers haven't got their money, and they're not enforcing, and as paying won't remove the CCJ, he might as well continue the ignoring and not paying, at least for the moment.

Edited by FTMDave
Typo

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

go check his credit file 

does the ccj  show in public records section?

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 UKPCL/DCB PCN +£300 CCJ - ignored everything - McDonald's Albert Docks, Liverpool

its interesting to see BECAUSE the defendant ignored everything, they went for lots of extra fake unicorn food tax and fake court charges and got +£300 judgement when most are £257ish.

BAD MOVE TO IGNORE!!

its also worthy to note i believe that from previous threads? here i seem to remember the docks are covered by the docks byelaws and ukpcl cant enforce anything by issuing speculative invoices....not relevant land 

 

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

Thanks for the input guys. I'll try to get the credit check to show you


I was under the impression from what i've read in previous posts that unless the PPC can prove who the driver was beyond reasonable doubt the court would just sling out the case and the charges would be dropped?


Fortunately My Dad shouldn't be needing any credit at his age. He's managed his finances well so a six year CCJ is not the end of the world.

Is it impossible for the fleecers at this point to get paid?

Whom does he owe money at this stage and is the payment enforceable? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, hlh49421 said:

I was under the impression from what i've read in previous posts that unless the PPC can prove who the driver was beyond reasonable doubt the court would just sling out the case and the charges would be dropped?

Spot on.  But in that case the claim needs to be defended so that a judge gets to decide who is right and who not.  Because he didn't defend he lost by default.

18 minutes ago, hlh49421 said:

Fortunately My Dad shouldn't be needing any credit at his age. He's managed his finances well so a six year CCJ is not the end of the world. 

Good news!

18 minutes ago, hlh49421 said:

 Is it impossible for the fleecers at this point to get paid?

He can pay the fleecers if he wants, but as it won't remove the CCJ, why bother?  At least he can take revenge by depriving them of their ill-gotten gains.

19 minutes ago, hlh49421 said:

Whom does he owe money at this stage and is the payment enforceable? 

He owes £323.32 as per the court order to UK Parking Control Ltd.

Yes, it is enforceable.

But I've been on this site for seven years, and I've never seen the fleecers enforce a court order for a single ticket.

Personally I'd refuse to pay but be very proactive and upload any communications he gets immediately here.

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

Can UKPC Ltd now send in the real bailiffs to collect the amount that is owed if they don't receive what the court have awarded to them? If they've taken the time to take it to court and won by default surely they will finish the job off and collect the money? Plus they'll be legally entitled this time

DCBL were trying to recover £323.32 but the amount claimed in the county court was £300.48
There's a discrepancy there straightaway

Yes there's absolutely no way he'll be paying the fleecers at this point i'll make sure of that. He's keen to ignore further anyway but is he at risk of receiving a knock on the door in the near future from the bailiffs demanding £300.48 on behalf of UKPC Ltd?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can UKPC Ltd now send in the real bailiffs to collect the amount that is owed if they don't receive what the court have awarded to them?  Yes.

If they've taken the time to take it to court and won by default surely they will finish the job off and collect the money?  Never seen a PPC do this for a single ticket ever in the last seven years.  We've seen it but only in cases of multiple tickets and a very large debt.

DCBL were trying to recover £323.32 but the amount claimed in the county court was £300.48
There's a discrepancy there straightaway  No, there isn't.  The fleecers were including 8% yearly interest on a daily basis up to judgement, so there will be an increase from when they issued the claim up to judgement.  Again, it's a huge shame that your father didn't defend because, even if he lost, a judge would only allow a few % interest and only for one year, not the four years the fleecers got.

It's up to him, but personally I wouldn't pay, but he has to be ready to jump into action in the unlikely event that real enforcement - not the usual daft threats about dropping a nuclear missile on his house - starts.  The regulars here are quite happy to help out.  If in doubt, always upload anything the fleecers send.

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

1 hour ago, hlh49421 said:

Can UKPC Ltd now send in the real bailiffs to collect the amount that is owed if they don't receive what the court have awarded to them?

Just to Clarity here for you and future readers..

not sure what you mean by 'real bailiffs' here - p'haps the DCBL TV series has somewhat confused you .......

they are operating on mostly business/private prosecutions and are High Court Enforcement Officers - unless any court CCJ judgement is above £600 an HCEO can NEVER EVER be involved. and anyway as it's a CIVIL county court Consumer debt - there is ZERO right of forced entry.

IF IF IF the CLAIMANT wants to enforce the debt by BAILIFFS, they would HAVE TO return to court (of which the court will write to inform the defendant) and ASK the judge to send County Court BAILIFFS... like wise .. they have NO RIGHT OF FORCED ENTRY.. so to all intent and purpose can simply be IGNORED

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

What if a high court writ is obtained?

Are the HCEO's permitted to access my Dad's house or business address and seize assets if the cash cannot be collected?

I know this is all 'ifs & buts' at this stage but it's good to be aware of impending action


But like dx100uk has said the CCJ was under £600 so it's good to know at this point nobody would try to force entry into my Dads home or business without him first hearing about a high court writ of control first

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

High court bailiffs can never be involved if the amount is under £600.  Full stop.

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

3 hours ago, hlh49421 said:

without him first hearing about a high court writ of control first

NO!! cant happen end of! 

no right of forced entry ... period.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...