Victory over One Parking Solution / DCB Legal

valiant24

zzsssssssS

The_Deep

My question is not how to defend the Claim (for now), but is it reasonable for me to have to expend all this time of effort responding to a THIRD Letter of Claim

Totally unreasonable, but, unless they take you to court, (and lose), there is very little you can do about it.

Nine times out of ten of these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies

Fruitcake

You should not have ignored the original PCN. That advice has not been given here since the law changed in 2012.

What does/did the lease where the vehicle was parked say about parking/visitor parking etcetera? Just as importantly, what doesn't it say? This informatin is crucial as a lease/AT has primacy of contract over anything a parking scammers says.

ZZPS are debt collectors and cannot take anyone to court. Are you sure you received a real LoC, or was it a debt crawler letter on scamlicitor's headed paper?

Are you sure all three LoC's are for the same alleged event?

Are you sure you have a real LoC as opposed to another debt crawler letter on scamlicitor's headed paper.

You ask if this is reasonable. No it isn't but unfortunately it will continue until a mandatory code of practice s produced to back u the new parking bill that received royal ascent in February of this year.

Anyway, to answer your questions,

Read the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in post 2 of the NEWBIES. This has a step by step guide from the LBC to the court date.

Respond to the LoC as per court guide and also tell the scamlicitors in writing that you deny the debt but are seeking debt advice so they are required to put your case on hold for a month.

Send an SAR to the parking scammers as per the NEWBIES sticky thread. Send it as soon as possible.

Complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

valiant24

Thanks for your reply. Points in turn.

You should not have ignored the original PCN. That advice has not been given here since the law changed in 2012.
Noted, but water under the bridge now.

What does/did the lease where the vehicle was parked say about parking/visitor parking etcetera? Just as importantly, what doesn't it say? This informatin is crucial as a lease/AT has primacy of contract over anything a parking scammers says.
It was over 2 years ago now, so I have no idea. This information was one of the pieces I requested from One Parking Solution in my unrequited response to their November 2017 Letter of Claim.

ZZPS are debt collectors and cannot take anyone to court. Are you sure you received a real LoC, or was it a debt crawler letter on scamlicitor's headed paper?
The Letter of Claim of October 2017 was from Wright Hassall Solicitors acting on behalf of ZZPS. My response to this asked Wright Hassall asking what rights their client ZZPS had in this matter after which they dropped the Claim. I later contacted Wright Hassall's Compliance Manager to complain about the apparent misrepresentation, but they assured me that their letter was genuine, not issued by ZZPS in the manner you describe.

Are you sure all three LoC's are for the same alleged event?
Yes

Are you sure you have a real LoC as opposed to another debt crawler letter on scamlicitor's headed paper.
No, but as per original post DCB Legal is a genuine solicitor registered with the SRA, albeit that they are closely linked to DCBL, which is a debt collector.

Thanks for the advice!

valiant24

In response to a request from KeithP I attach a link to the Letter of Claim from DCB Legal.
No Reply Form, you have to fill it in online at their website or send a slip requesting a paper one.
It doesn't seem geared towards car parking as at at the top of one page it says "If you don't have a copy of the agreement with the business ..." which is obviously implied with a PCN.

Similar legerdemain as I have previously seen from Brethertons and Wright Hassall on other matters: states that the judgement will stay on the Register and will be used by banks for credit checks etc and only in passing mentions that this will ONLY happen if you lose AND don't pay.

httpx://postimg.cc/gallery/mia1rsjm/

KeithP

https://postimg.cc/gallery/mia1rsjm/

Yes, and as discussed on that other thread, that is a Letter of Claim.

KeithP wrote: »

https://postimg.cc/c6kp0R5m

Valiant24, that is a Letter of Claim.

You need to react to that as described in the first few paragraphs of post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

Coupon-mad

The fact you had a couple of pseudo debt collector LBCs back in 2017 is not a reason to treat this (probably real) one any differently than the NEWBIES thread tells you.

The old 2017 letters are irrelevant.

Is this a site in Sussex? When you get a claim, I can offer local help, if so.

valiant24

Yes, thank you.

Somewhere - but now I can't find it - I read advice that it's not necessary to use the complainant's reply form for the SAR. Is that correct? The Protocol itself makes frequent reference to a Reply Form (and none at all to a SAR) and even includes one in its Appendicies, so I am wary about not using one at all and replying free-form.

I know I've only been on the site for 5 minutes but I do have experience in resisting non-parking Letters before Claim, and I think the Newbies section would be improved by removing the link to the Legal Beagles site's template SAR, as to my mind the template covers only personal detail and omits a lot of detail you should be asking about the alleged offence also. Just my opinion though ;-).

Many thanks again for your help and interest.
V

valiant24

Is this a site in Sussex?

Yes, it was at my daughter's flat at Brighton. How did you guess?! I can't recall this exact incident, but usually had her parking permit when I visited (she didn't have a car at the time) hence why I ignored the PCN.

KeithP

valiant24 wrote: »

Somewhere - but now I can't find it - I read advice that it's not necessary to use the complainant's reply form for the SAR. Is that correct? The Protocol itself makes frequent reference to a Reply Form (and none at all to a SAR) and even includes one in its Appendicies, so I am wary about not using one at all and replying free-form.

Yes, do not use the forms. Respond along the lines described in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

valiant24 wrote: »

I know I've only been on the site for 5 minutes but I do have experience in resisting non-parking Letters before Claim, and I think the Newbies section would be improved by removing the link to the Legal Beagles site's template SAR, as to my mind the template covers only personal detail and omits a lot of detail you should be asking about the alleged offence also. Just my opinion though ;-).

But a Subject Access Request is definitely not the vehicle to be used for retrieving data which is not personal data.

Yes, you need a lot of other information, but a SAR is not the way to get it.

valiant24

The fact you had a couple of pseudo debt collector LBCs back in 2017 is not a reason to treat this (probably real) one any differently than the NEWBIES thread tells you.

Appreciate it probably makes no difference, but although the Sep17 was from Wright Hassall solicitors representing ZZPS (and One Parking Solution, their Compliance Officer eventually claimed, after I complained to their Managing Partner), the 2nd one in Oct 17 was from One Parking Solution itself, so not a debt collector at all.