PE/DCBL 2019 PCN - Notice of Debt Recovery - unpaid parking charge £170

[Billy Williams]

Thank you, I will do what you suggest. 

[dx100uk]

trust us.

get that q& a done asap please!

dx

[Nicky Boy]

Still supposing, wondering and guessing... please, please, please read some other threads!

[Gick]

Can I point out to Billy Williams that the Bulk Centre in Northampton is not a County Court in the normal terms, it is merely and Administrative office situated in St Katherin's House with a number of computer terminals and operators. It is a means of streamlining civil claims relieving County Courts around the country from having to deal with the repetitive  initial claims of some types such a parking which can then be dealt with through Money Claims Online (MCOL).

All that I can see from your thread is that you have picked up, from some unknown sources, a hash mash of terms, many of which do not apply to Private Parking .

Much of this could have been dealt with had you complied with the repeated request to

1) read other threads here, in particular the Success thread, which will answer much that you are asking (we have seen these questions many times, the site is self help too)

2) Scan any paperwork that you have, redacting all personal information and reference numbers, posting to give the experienced Caggers a chance to see what is applicable to your situation.  Most of your questions seem to be hypothetical.

I would remind you that all of the team, (site team and members alike) on Consumer Action Group are volunteers  and we just like to help.

 

 

[honeybee13]

How did it go with the local court, Billy?

HB

[Billy Williams]

You were right about the court! The person who posted earlier, suggesting these matters are dealt with by the bulk centre, must have been mistaken?

I have decided to pay the £170 and will be sending the payment in cash. 

[honeybee13]

I don't think anyone said it will be dealt with by the bulk centre. The initial claim goes through the bulk centre and is then allocated to an appropriate county court to deal with the rest of it.

Why are you thinking of paying the £170 please?

HB

[Billy Williams]

Paying in cash seems to cause claimants major problems, and if they choose to return my payment, the debt is extinguished. 

[honeybee13]

It seems to have gone last time you tried that one.

I meant why are you paying DCBL/Parking Eye at all when it's a speculative invoice?

HB

[Ethel Street]

A novel approach, not come across that one before. Let us know what happens. My guess is private parking companies never say No to money in whatever form!

[Billy Williams]

Last time I paid in cash, the payments were returned. 

A judge took a very dim view of that, and I am now looking for compensation related to being threatened by bailiffs, in relation to the default situation, the claimants had themselves engineered.

Nothing to stop anyone paying in cash if they choose to. 

Best way is coins of low domination, sent in a package using signed for delivery.  

[Bazooka Boo]

Ah yes, FMOTL. All makes sense now.

[dx100uk]

2 hours ago, Billy Williams said:

Paying in cash seems to cause claimants major problems, and if they choose to return my payment, the debt is extinguished. 

nope!!

and freeman of the land twaddle now makes sense on how you are responding to your other thread too.

no wonder you are in this pickle in both cases.

i would drop the freeman of the land stuff pretty pronto else things are only gonna get alot worst as time goes on.

pers i dont think you have anywhere to go with getting compo here.

dx

[FTMDave]

The "debt" is for a £100 invoice plus £70 debt collecting fees, the latter being expressly forbidden by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

We've seen several cases where the motorist lost in court, but the judge still disallowed the extra made-up £70.

So why you would want to pay this, by cash or in any other way, is beyond me.

Still. it's your case, not ours, you insist on hiding vital details from us, up to you, you'll be the one losing £170 and/or ending up with a completely-avoidable court claim, not us.

 

[Billy Williams]

re my other thread: Paying by cash is in law perfectly acceptable. In my case, a claimant spuriously obtained a writ of control, on the basis of cash not being legally viable. 

They suggested that payments had not been made, even though I had Royal Mail confirmations that the payments had been made, and had been received and accepted by the claimant.  

I have not as yet obtained the submission that made to the High Court in respect of getting the writ, but if it is inclusive of what I think it is likely to contain, then it's contempt of court pure and simple, and is something I will be pursuing. 

As the writ of control was issued on the basis of submissions, which were either wholly, or in part untrue, then there is a very strong possibility of compensation.

The bailiff action that followed the writ was unlawful, and there also exists a very strong possibility of contempt of court, on the part of the claimant. 

as for this pcn. Sorry for not posting up the pro-forma threat letter, but cannot see any purpose in so doing as I would guess that they are all pretty much the same?

Will phone DCBL when I have time, and ask them if cash payments are acceptable.   

 

My comments about making payments in cash,  are supported by a court judgement, and are not related in any way to the FMOTL nonsense!

[Nicky Boy]

But, but, but,

What if they actually accept the cash?

If I send you an invoice, will you pay me in cash... please?

[dx100uk]

ALL FMOTL TWADDLE  or caused by believing such rubbish.

dx

[Billy Williams]

I find it very strange that a District Judge, would want to promote any of the FMOTL crap?  If he was wrong in law to suggest that making payments in cash is lawful, and such payments should be accepted, please feel free to point me towards the specific legislation, which confirms his decision was incorrect? 

In respect of making submissions to a court, which are knowingly untrue, that amounts to contempt. Contempt is of course a criminal matter, so does anyone know the exact procedure to lay an action, before a magistrate's bench?  The said action would be in relation to the contempt matter, which I feel the magistrates should deal with.

[dx100uk]

should these posts not be on your other thread?

dx

 

[Billy Williams]

They never accept cash!  Some parking scammers have specific notices on their threat letters,  saying they DO NOT ACCEPT CASH.

That though is related to their business practices only, and does not prevent anyone paying using cash if they choose to.

 

[honeybee13]

So here we are 45 posts in and we still none the wiser the DCBL letter. I'm not sure what purpose this thread is serving at the moment.

HB

[dx100uk]

this sovereign citizen/FMOTL twaddle like i only use cash and am a traveller not a driver really does invoke devote cult like membership/undying belief, much the same as cult trump.  

[honeybee13]

Don't mention Trump, dx, that's another thread worth.

HB

[lookinforinfo]

According to the Bank of England any coins used to pay off a debt are limited to £100. Anything over that would not be considered as legal tender.

  https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/

[Billy Williams]

It's very peculiar that the "Site Team" posting on this forum seem to believe a court judgement, is in some way related to the FMOTL nonsense?  Why a district judge would choose to make a decision, which validates such gibberish, is well beyond me?

While we still have cash, it's something that CAN be used to make payments, and as in my case, may force a claimant into breaking the law, in an effort to curtail that method of payment.

Had I chosen to do so, I could have refused in court to set up a direct debit to make future payments, and advised I would be continuing to pay in cash.  Counting out £50 payments of copper and low denomination silver, and sending it off via signed for delivery, was getting rather tedious though, and I would have stopped of my own accord pretty soon anyway.

That the claimant decided to break the law and then threaten me with sub-epsilon bully boys, said loud and clear just how seriously they regarded making payments in cash actually is. 

As the matter now stands, if I can prove the claimant has made representations to the high court, which are wholly or partially untrue, they are in contempt of court, and the sub-epsilons have made threats against me on the basis of a writ which was wholly spurious.

It seems that there is a strong possibility of obtaining compensatory payments from both the claimant and the sub-epsilons (bailiffs). I find it worrying that the "Site Team" seem to think this is something that should be derided, on the basis that the law of the land, has in this case been usurped by FMOTL idiocy?

When the compensation matters have been dealt with, I will be putting an outline of what has gone on into the public domain, and if after reading it, others choose to pay using cash, there is nothing to stop them so doing.