County Court Claim - OPS & DCB Legal

beamerguy

retropeck wrote: »

Thanks for this, I will file a complaint to my MP also.

Also the SRA ... https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems.page

YES Worthing for your hearing

DCBL are going down the same miserable route as BWLegal where they cannot defend Abuse of process because the law is not on their side

DCBL will learn the hard way

KeithP

retropeck wrote: »

Although the PCN was at Chichester College in West Sussex, I reside in East Hampshire. I'm happy to travel to Worthing if it means help in the matter, how would I request court to be assigned to Worthing, or is this not an option?

Later in the process - see Bargepole's 'what happens when' post linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread - you get to choose where any hearing is held.

Coupon-mad

Although the PCN was at Chichester College in West Sussex, I reside in East Hampshire. I'm happy to travel to Worthing if it means help in the matter, how would I request court to be assigned to Worthing, or is this not an option?

State in your N180 Directions Questionnaire (you know what happens when, from the NEWBIES thread) that you require Worthing Court as your college is near there and it will be easier for you to attend...(yes I know...don't say it!).

retropeck

Great thanks, are there any tweaks recommended on that revised defence before I send it across?

Many thanks

1505grandad

Just checking - para 13 - "The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is/was on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred."

is Debt Recovery Plus actually involved?

retropeck

Good spot thanks, no Debt Recovery Plus aren't involved. Letters I've had so far are from;

ZZPS Ltd
QDR Solicitors Ltd
DCB Legal Ltd
DCBL Ltd

I can't see anywhere on DCBL's website that they offer no recovery, no fee so I have deleted that part from para 13:

13. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred an additional £60 in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £80 debt. Alleging that the letters the parking firm sent have caused an additional loss, is simply untrue. Whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process, parking charges (unlike other 'debt' claims) must by definition, already encompass the costs of the operation.

Coupon-mad

Sounds good.

Also attach a copy of DJ Grand's order from Southampton - see CEC16's thread - and DDJ Joseph's Warwick order (see CrystalTips' thread). High time Judges saw these up front.

retropeck

Great thanks, will send it tonight. Is there a copy of DJ Grand's order or should I use your report? I've found the copy of DDJ Joseph's order to attach.

Coupon-mad

Use DJ Grand's original order from the Summer, that's in the Abuse of Process thread, as the more recent one is really short and can be added later.

beamerguy

retropeck wrote: »

Good spot thanks, no Debt Recovery Plus aren't involved. Letters I've had so far are from;

ZZPS Ltd
QDR Solicitors Ltd
DCB Legal Ltd
DCBL Ltd

I can't see anywhere on DCBL's website that they offer no recovery, no fee so I have deleted that part from para 13:

13. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred an additional £60 in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £80 debt. Alleging that the letters the parking firm sent have caused an additional loss, is simply untrue. Whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process, parking charges (unlike other 'debt' claims) must by definition, already encompass the costs of the operation.

It is amazing that the above gringos, part of the Wild Bunch scammers operating, really do think they can all break the law.?

There is no reasonable belief ....... whether or not the PPC gets charged by fairy tale debt collectors really does not matter, the Supreme court made a ruling that it is very clear that the ticket price includes the costs of the PPC.

No county court judge is above the judge's of the Supreme court

DCBL Law have NO AUTHORITY TO ADD A FAKE AMOUNT and the judge should be asked about their authority ??? they have none

Recently. BWLegal said it was allowed by the code of practice.
That is so much rubbish, the CoP ONLY APPLIES to members of the ATA's which does not apply to the motorists let alone a judge.

What these Wild Bunch DO NOT have is the authority because there is none.

Understand the junk written by the BPA and IPC
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6083229

All links are updated in the ABUSE OF PROCESS thread where you can find everything you need to know to spank them

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081