VCS issued PCN after 25 days, I told them where to stick it, now DCB Legal have sent me an LBC

Garyswork2

Update July 17th

DCBL are very keen and also proud of being on Netflix!
Received this at 7:55am.



I've not had anything back from VCS about by SAR though. Not even an automated response.

beamerguy

Garyswork2 ...... bottom line is DCBL are trying to scam you with a fake £60.

Not even Netflix can save them from ABUSE OF PROCESS

Garyswork2

Update Aug 8th:-
So having had a response from DCBL on 17th July acknowledging my SAR request to VCS and not to process my data for a period of 30 days, 3 weeks on I have now received this (although they didn't even spell my name correctly on the Money Claim form).

How do I respond?

hxxps://ibb.co/vQrRyQx

Also their maths stink. The original parking charge from 2016 was £100 yet they claim 8% interest on £160 per year, despite the fact that they had only notified me of the added £60 fee on July 28th 2019. Another error or fraud...

KeithP

https://ibb.co/vQrRyQx

No need to post dead links any more. You have enough posts to now post live links.


With a Claim Issue Date of 5th August, you have until Tuesday 27th August to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 9th September 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Post #2 of the NEWBIES thread also contains everything else you might need on your journey to court.

beamerguy

https://ibb.co/vQrRyQx

Interesting to see DCBL attaching themselves to the £60 scam

Interesting that DCBL are claiming damages, wonder what damages they refer to, a judge would be very interested to hear their excuse.

The interest will be doubtful be dismissed as the question must be asked to the court .. "why have they taken so long to issue a claim"

The main point is ABUSE OF PROCESS as defined by POFOA2012
"The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4

VCS for some reason do not rely on POFA2012, no matter, the courts own rules do NOT allow double recovery.

ABUSE BY DCBL
Complain to the SRA that DCBL are attempting to abuse you and the courts
https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems.page

NOW READ THIS
Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal
Same applies to DCBL
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

But what will DCBL say about damages ??????
Will it impress a judge .... don't think so

Garyswork2

Thanks again.
I've submitted the Acknowledgement of Service which buys me time to put my defence statement together. I'll need your help with this bit as I'm no legal guru, but having read the linked threads I have so far come up with the statement below.

In addition FYI, I am responding as the registered keeper & defendant and have no intention to name the driver.
The statement is an edited version of Coupon-mad's to suit my defence.
I plan to attach copies of the claimants letter where they state that they adhere to the IPC and a copy of the IPC highlighting where the claimant has failed to NTK in time.
The points specific to my case are:- 6, 8, 9, although hopefully they are all relevant.

---

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: FXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

VCS FAKE FINE LTD (Claimant)

-and-

ME (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT

1. I am the Defendant, ???? , DOB xx/xx/xxxx, and reside at ?????? and it is admitted that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle on the day of this event.

2. I, the Defendant, deny each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.


Preliminary matters:

3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charge(s)”.

5. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details (i.e. the misspelling of my surname) nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.


In further support of there being a want of cause of action:

6. The PCN was issued out of time. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part C 5.1(m), highlighting that, ”the Notice to Keeper must given to be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking.
In the claimants’ letter to the defendant dated 21st Sept 2016, the claimant confirms that they are “established members of the Independent Parking Committee“ and that they adhere to their CoP for parking on private land, yet the PCN was issued 25 days after the alleged offence.

7. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that a CoP is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.

8. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is an attempt at double recovery not allowed under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 and is an abuse or process.

9. It is submitted that the claim falsely includes interest dating back to 2016. The claimant did not bring the case to claim until 5/8/19 and is attempting to claim interest for those 3 years on the inflated claim for damages as mentioned in statement 18.

10. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

11. As was confirmed in the case ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case'), ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

12. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

13. The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

14. The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.
________________________________________


"I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true."

With a signature and date below

Redx

It is just the one word DEFENCE, not DEFENCE Statement

You won't be attaching any evidence to the defence, clearly you haven't studied the newbies thread properly if you think evidence is submitted with the defence

Add the abuse of process paragraphs by coupon mad posted in the thread by beamerguy to the latter part of the defence draft

Where you haved used IPC, you have used incorrect wording for their name

The claimant has no solicitors, it's an in house claim, unless they instructed B W Legal ?

Or is DCB Legal the ones who issued the claim ?

KeithP

Paragraph 1 should be reduced to something like:

1.The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle on the day of the alleged event.

A Defence should be written in the third person. The word 'I' is also used lower down - para 12.

Garyswork2

Thanks both.

Redx wrote: »

It is just the one word DEFENCE, not DEFENCE Statement

Amended

Redx wrote: »

You won't be attaching any evidence to the defence, clearly you haven't studied the newbies thread properly if you think evidence is submitted with the defence

I've printed copies which I will keep until the point where I may be required to submit them.

Redx wrote: »

Add the abuse of process paragraphs by coupon mad posted in the thread by beamerguy to the latter part of the defence draft

Copied and numbered the paragraphs which I will post with my updated defence if needed.

Redx wrote: »

Where you have used IPC, you have used incorrect wording for their name

Amended.

Redx wrote: »

The claimant has no solicitors, it's an in house claim, unless they instructed B W Legal ?

Or is DCB Legal the ones who issued the claim ?

The Claim Form shows VCS as the claimants, but then DCBL as the address for sending docs or payment. It is also signed by the claimants legal rep.

KeithP wrote: »

Paragraph 1 should be reduced to something like:

1.The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle on the day of the alleged event.

KeithP wrote: »

A Defence should be written in the third person. The word 'I' is also used lower down - para 12.

Thanks. I've amended the way I refer to myself as such:-

________________________________________
DEFENCE

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle on the day of the alleged event.

2. The Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

Guys_Dad

Why are you quoting the IPC code in respect of the 14 day out of time point? Surely the POFA is a much stronger reference . In fact, use both!