County Claim CP Plus/ DCB Legal

BellieBe

Received from DCBL-

Having reviewed the content of your defence; we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim. The Court will direct both parties to file directions questionnaires in due course. In anticipation of that, please find attached a copy of which has been filed with the Court.

nosferatu1001

Yep, absolutley normal. 
You know to look out for the DQ? Check MCOL, it tell syou when it is sent. Or  you just download and file your own version of the N180, all as per the newbies thread. 

BellieBe

I responded to their email-

“You have now reviewed my full defence which was sent to the court.

On the 26th May, I requested you explain your legal authority to add unlawful amounts. Further to your email dated 1 June, you appeared to confuse a letter asking on what legal authority you have to add unlawful amounts with a defence?  Now that you have seen my defence, you still have not explained your legal authority to add unlawful amounts. I must now consider your claim to be unreliable and will ask the court to strike out your claim for abuse of process.

Note, that my previous letter, your letter and this letter will be brought to the attention of the judge on the day.  I strongly suggest you now consider your situation in this matter.”

They have responded-

“Thank you for your email, the contents of which is noted.

 A parking charge was issued however, as you failed to make payment within 14 days, the Claimant instructed DCBL and incurred debt recovery fees as a result of this.

As per the site terms, you are liable for the PCN plus debt recovery charges, Court fees and costs.”

From what I remember, the PCN is meant to include any debt recovery? And of course there is the interest miscalculation as well. Do I respond? 

Thanks,

Le_Kirk

They are digging themselves a hole!  You can continue to play ping-pong and respond that despite what their signs claim, it is against PoFA, against Beavis and against the CRA.  If they wish, they can continue to fail to answer your very simple question "upon what LEGAL authority do they....." and we'll see what the judge has to say.
We'll also see what @beamerguy has to say.

BellieBe

On another note, when trying to look on MCOL it is asking for my “defence pack password” as well as claim number, any idea where that would be? Submitted defence via email as the website was down so maybe that’s not an option?

Le_Kirk

When you submitted your AoS, you would have had a log-in and password on the claim form from the CCBC - -see if it is on there.

Coupon-mad

Honestly it is pointless replying about the added £60 or £70.  Just pointless expecting any sense.

BellieBe

Le_Kirk said:

When you submitted your AoS, you would have had a log-in and password on the claim form from the CCBC - -see if it is on there.

Found it Le Kirk thanks. Website says DQ was sent today so probably get it by Friday.

Ok thanks couponmad I’ll save my breath. 

beamerguy

They have responded-

“Thank you for your email, the contents of which is noted.

 A parking charge was issued however, as you failed to make payment within 14 days, the Claimant instructed DCBL and incurred debt recovery fees as a result of this.

As per the site terms, you are liable for the PCN plus debt recovery charges, Court fees and costs.”

-------- and youir response ..

Dear Sirs,

Further to your letter dated xxx

I note you have failed to explain your legal authority. Why are you in denial of the Supreme Court ruling that clearly states that the parking charge is set at an amount that includes costs of collection.

Why are you attempting to go against POFA2012 ?  Why are you attempting to go against the county court ruling of double recovery ? 

Reference will be made to a recent case in Luton County Court, claim number F0DP77KP, the judge gave his reason for striking out the claim is as follows:-

The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the Parking charge which it is alleged that the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Act 2012

Additionally, S71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires the court to consider the fairness of a contract term and the provision of additional charges falls into example 6, 10 and 14 of the indicative list of unfair terms in schedule 2 of the act. It is an Abuse of Process for the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated sum which they are not entitled to recover

Therefore, given the above and your failure to explain your legal authority, your claim can only be considered as unreliable and as such, I will ask the court to strike out your claim as Abuse of Process

Yours faithfully,

BellieBe

Powerful! Thanks beamerguy.