PPC // NTC Help! Conversation's since debt recovery DCBL has got involved

beamerguy

doxborough91 wrote: »

Do you think I should send them a wordy response or just a plain simple one? In respect of SAR should I hit them with one or not at this point?

Thanks Beamer as always.

In my book, you hit them with everything until they comply with law. If they don't comply, they have to explain to a court why not.

Don't make the mistake of thinking these are real solicitors, they are simply a shameful bunch that are not fit for purpose

doxborough91

Ok Ok will get something together, are you happy to take a look at it for me before I send it over I'm not much of a writer!

beamerguy

doxborough91 wrote: »

Ok Ok will get something together, are you happy to take a look at it for me before I send it over I'm not much of a writer!

Of course just copy on here, not just me but the others will comment

doxborough91

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter of claim dated <DATE> reference: <REF>.

Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your clients places reliance upon.

Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your clients to provide. Your clients must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your clients) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Nobody, including your clients, are immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20); Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Furthermore I am writing to your company - BW Legal and clients National Car Parks Limited (NCP), TRACE Debt Recovery UK Limited, in capacity of Data Protection. I have reason to believe you hold personal data on myself as a vehicle I owned and were the registered keeper for visits to car parking sites managed by your client. It should be noted that contrary to article 13 of GDPR legislation no privacy information was provided to myself, the data subject, at the time of collection. I am therefore compelled into making this request for access to personal data pursuant to Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulation. which, as you will be aware, came into force on 25 May 2018

I would like you to be aware at the outset, that I anticipate a reply to my request within one month as required under Article 12, failing which I will be forwarding my inquiry with a letter of complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).

Please advise as to the following:
1. Please confirm to me whether or not my personal data is being processed. If it is, please provide me with the categories of personal data you have about me in your files and databases.
1.a. In particular, please tell me what you know about me in your information systems, whether or not contained in databases, and including e-mail, documents on your networks, or voice or other media that you may store.
1.b. Additionally, please advise me in which countries my personal data is stored, or accessible from. In case you make use of cloud services to store or process my data, please include the countries in which the servers are located where my data are or were (in the past 12 months) stored.
1.c. Please provide me with a copy of, or access to, my personal data that you have or are processing.
2. Please provide me with a detailed accounting of the specific uses and lawful basis that you have made, are making or will be making of my personal data.
3. Please provide a list of all third parties with whom you have (or may have) shared my personal data.
3.a. If you cannot identify with certainty the specific third parties to whom you have disclosed my personal data, please provide a list of third parties to whom you may have disclosed my personal data.
3.b. Please also identify which jurisdictions that you have identified above that these third parties with whom you have or may have shared my personal data, from which these third parties have stored or can access my personal data. Please also provide insight in the legal grounds for transferring my personal data to these jurisdictions. Where you have done so, or are doing so, on the basis of appropriate safeguards, please provide a copy.
3.c Additionally, I would like to know what safeguards have been put in place in relation to these third parties that you have identified in relation to the transfer of my personal data.
4. Please advise how long you store my personal data, and if retention is based upon the category of personal data, please identify how long each category is retained.
5. If you are additionally collecting personal data about me from any source other than me, please provide me with all information about their source, as referred to in Article 14 of the GDPR.
6. If you are making automated decisions about me, including profiling, whether or not on the basis of Article 22 of the GDPR, please provide me with information concerning the basis for the logic in making such automated decisions, and the significance and consequences of such processing.

doxborough91

Hi Beamerguy, I have rushed this as I lost all my login details and have only just been able to log back on! I don't know if I have to time to go to court and my wife is expecting so I don't know if it's easier to just pay it! These scammers are the worst!

Redx

if they do send you an MCOL, court is up to 6 months after the initial paperwork, so I dont believe you have an MCOL yet

meaning you are still playing ping pong and denying any debt

this type of PCN sc@m wont change until the new CoP bill becomes law, so complain to your MP

https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parkingcodeofpractice.html

doxborough91

Thank you, is this a good response in respect of my previous thread? And await for a resonse from them?

Ok I will complain, I stillnhavent heard back yet from county hall in terms of who owns the land/if signs have planning permission.

Redx

if your response is based on recent responses in other threads, then send it

in simple terms you are denying an alleged debt, plus asking for proof that a debt exists and all the reasons why

if the large volume of words says this, then send it (I wont be reading it)

so denial of debt , send the PPC a SAR, check with the council, complaining to the landowner, its all about trying to sort it out before a court gets involved

court is a last resort, so you have to be seen to have been doing something to resolve it, as do B W LEGAL and/or the PPC

engaging in the process is a part of this pre-court preamble

LoneStarState

OP....

The GDPR/SAR section of that response to BW Legal mentions National Car Parks and TRACE Debt Recovery. Correct the names to Norwich Traffic Control and DCBL although personally I see little point in sending an SAR to a debt collector unless you personally are willing to do it to waste their time. BW Legal and NTC are the bigger fish here.

Redx

oh dear, a classic case of copying and pasting without adaptation and reading etc


so follow the last post and do as they said


and as they say, an SAR to a debt collector is pointless