SAR request multiple claim legally binding?

Coupon-mad

Dear Sirs,  

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx Ltd v  xxxxx xxxxxx

Pre-action/recovery letters x 2 - refs xxxxxx and xxxxxx

I refer to DCBL's duplicate letters dated xx/xx/20 under the above two references. I dispute that there is any debt owed to  xxxxxxx xxxxxxx Ltd.

Whilst these letters don't carry the full 'DCBLegal' name, thus far, DCBL has (negligently or otherwise) failed to meet the rules about debt recovery and the pre-action phase.  What do you mean by 'recovery' letters with a highly misleading threat of ''Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away!'' - litigation or not?  No-one can know what the nature of DCBL's business and status of the case is, from the letters I have received.  The author of the letters obviously intends for their words to act in terrorem of the recipient by mimicking a pre-action Letter before Claim or perhaps a bailiff warrant. 

I conclude that your solicitors cannot have properly checked or overseen these letters and I hereby give you fair warning that DCBLegal must surely take immediate steps to review and amend these letter templates and stop DCBL staff from sending such malicious communications.

Misleading letters - to be reported to the SRA

I am contacting DCBLegal rather than telephoning the '24hr payment line' or fruitlessly logging onto your website, which only provides me with a single option to pay, and not to dispute the alleged debt.  I am shocked and alarmed by what can only be described as misleading codswallop being issued in the DCBL name and I remind you of the severe SRA and FCA sanctions implications, should DCBL continue to ply your trade in this manner.  I believe that the SRA have received and are currently considering multiple complaints about the likes of robo-claim firms such as DCBLegal and it is my belief that their conduct in parking cases breaches the Standards and Regulations (StaRs) and seriously affects public confidence in the profession.  I will now add to the SRA's DCBLegal complaint file.

It is completely (deliberately?) unclear which arm of the DCBL group are responsible for these abusive letters, or whether they are generated by ZZPS using a DCBL letter-heading in a last-ditch effort to extract an exaggerated sum from victim consumers at a vulnerable time for everyone.   The letters include the word 'Bailiffs' more than once in bold, and even carry the 'Can't Pay? We'll take it Away' words and logo, despite the clear and obvious fact that it is not possible for bailiffs to be sent before a court claim and you can't just ''take it away'' if a person chooses not to make the ''immediate payment'' of £160 per Parking Charge Notice that you say must be made to 'prevent further action'.  That is misleading and malicious and there is no excuse. DCBL cannot be heard to say ''it's our company name'' because misleading names that impersonate a level of (bailiff) authority the writer does not have, are banned by the FCA.  Your letters followed a series of letters from ZZPS which also paid no regard to the FCA rules and were quite reasonably ignored by me, due to bearing all the hallmarks of scam mail.  

I owe nothing to your client and had no obligation to respond to demands from a parking firm who use a notorious 'no win, no fee' debt collection firm. I am aware that it is widely reported that ZZPS are a phoenix of Roxburghe (UK) Ltd, which folded after being declared unfit by the Office of Fair Trading, who refused to renew their consumer credit licence due to ‘unfair and misleading’ business practices'.  Your letters have simply continued in the same vein, by misstating the true position and suggesting that 'having a CCJ' automatically follows 'after further applications have been granted by the court' and that a warrant of control may/will be granted (just like that?) affecting my ability to obtain credit.  

The DCBL group of companies must have a very tenuous hold on your FCA and SRA licences.  Harassing claptrap like this, is precisely why the StaRs, the pre-action protocols and FCA Consumer Credit Sourcebook exist.  I require DCBL (whether it is 'DCBLegal' behind the recent letters or not) to cease and desist from sending me alarmist and unwarranted communications and note that the alleged debt is disputed and entirely denied.

Be advised that I have reported DCBLegal to the Solicitors' Regulation Authority because these 'CCJ/bailiff threat' letters are a clear abuse, in that they fail to:

(a) advance your client's whole case in one single, compliant Letter before Claim appending a copy of the contract (the sign) they are relying upon;

(b) break down the unconscionable sum of £160 per PCN, no doubt because it constitutes double recovery and DCBL hope I am unaware of this;

(c) allow me the correct time period to reply before action commences, as required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims;

(d) pay regard to the wording and enclosures needed for Letters before Claim, as required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims;

(e) attach the Reply forms required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims;

The relevant Protocol can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf  

Cause of Action estoppel

DCBLegal's solicitor will be aware that by detaching (or allowing to remain detached) elements of alleged debt - or series of alleged debts - and issuing separate claims, each which rely upon essentially duplicate particulars and facts, is an abuse of the civil litigation process.  The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same as another filed by the same claimant and should you or your client subsequently file more than one claim, I will apply for the second action to be struck out, with my full costs being borne by your client.  

Your clients have already issued a claim to me (claim number xxxxxxx) so they are estopped from subjecting me to a 'drip, drip' form  of harassment with more claims based upon duplicate or similar facts that should have been brought to court in the first instance.

In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”

In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:

(i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence, or error;
(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.

There has been no reasonable diligence exhibited in this case.   Kindly explain the error or omission in your process that meant there are/were no checks and balances by DCBL or your client (no human intervention at all) to interrogate the data of the cases being passed over and identify those which must form a single claim.

 

No entrance or large font signs - any contract is denied

NOTE: add detail about the car park signage and/or why you were authorised to park...

The signage is wholly inadequate and I have already covered this in my defence to the claim filed.  There are hundreds of words in extremely small print on a white/grey dirty sign on a fence with a complete lack of lighting or prominence, hidden behind parked cars.  What should be the crucial 'contractual charge' line is in the smallest font of all.

Breach of debt collection rules - complaint to the FCA about DCBL

I draw your attention to the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) Consumer Credit sourcebook which your staff can read here (May 2020 source 50):

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/CONC.pdf 

 

which includes mandatory principles including those I have quoted below.  It is noted that DCBL's letters say that you are regulated by the FCA and your online 'payment portal' offers payments by instalments (i.e. you offer credit on behalf of clients) therefore it is my position that your conduct is bound by the Sourcebook rules. As an FCA member (if DCBL in fact are), you have breached the basic 'clear fair and not misleading' rule and the general requirements:

Duty not to use misleading names:

''A firm must not carry on a credit-related regulated activity under a name which is likely to mislead customers about the status of the firm or the nature of its business, or in any other way. [Note: section 25(1AD) of CCA]''.  2.2.3. 

(1) ''In relation to CONC 2.2.3 R, an example of where a name may mislead is if the average customer of the firm is likely to be misled by the name of the firm.

 (2) Examples of the matters concerning a firm's status or the nature of its business about which its name may mislead customers include: 

(a) the identity or nature of the firm;  

(b) its commercial or profit-seeking status; 

(c) its role, including any relationship with any other person; 

(d) the extent of its authority; 

(e) stating or implying that the firm is a public body or that it is related or connected in some way to a charitable, not-for-profit or governmental or local governmental organisation or to the courts; 

(f) the nature of the products or services supplied; 

(g) the cost of those products or services; and 

(h) the scale of the business including its geographical scope. 

(3) A firm which operates under a variety of trading names should take particular care to ensure that customers are not misled as to the identity of the firm, or the nature or scale of the firm’s business''.   2.2.4.  

"A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt has been settled or is disputed and must not continue to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid." 7.5.3

"A firm must suspend any steps it takes or its agent takes in the recovery of a debt from a customer where the customer disputes the debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds." 7.14.1

"Where a customer disputes a debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds, the firm must investigate the dispute and provide details of the debt to the customer in a timely manner." 7.14.3

If you do not stop your 'recovery' activity (whatever that means) whilst investigating my dispute, then DCBL will be in further breach of the FCA's rules.  

Harassment and notice of proposed £900 counter claim

Due to the nature, number and wording of the unrelenting and wholly misleading ZZPS and DCBL letters, which followed predatory PCNs issued at a site which is operated in breach of the BPA Code of Practice, the entire series of communications constitutes unwarranted harassment.  I dispute the quantum and object to the intimidatory, misleading nature of the entire operation.  

Your clients have no cause of action, and must stop.  Kindly inform your clients that if a claim is filed, I will counterclaim and I will seek damages for distress and/or breach of statutory duty in the sum of £900, which is at the lower end of established guidance regarding harassment claims, pursuant to the following: 

a) damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ breach of statutory duty and misleading actions within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as amended by the Consumer Protection Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (“the Regulations”);  

b) damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ breach of statutory duty arising from breaches of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA');

c) damages for distress caused by breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation ('the GDPR');

d) damages for distress caused by harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ('the PFHA') ref section 3.

Personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully.  Your clients stand in breach of Article 5 (1) of the GDPR (the requirement for lawfulness, fairness and transparency) and the doctrines of open dealing and good faith in the CRA.  There was no entrance sign, no clear unambiguous terms and no permit scheme or other 'relevant obligation' that related to myself.   Accordingly, the processing of my DVLA data was not “necessary for the performance of, or commencing, a contract”, since no such contract existed. I will be reporting your clients to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for the initial processing and for sharing and allowing my data to be misused by ZZPS and DCBL to send various misleading communications.

By operating in a predatory fashion with inadequate signage, your clients had no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.  Your client had, and still has, no prospect of furthering their purpose and no legitimate cause to continue processing my data. 

In accordance with Principles 1,2 and 5 of the Data Protection Principles they were not permitted to either obtain, process or keep it.  The quantum of the alleged debt is in breach of Schedule 2 of the CRA and the misleading wording of this bombardment of demands from apparent 'bailiffs' pays no regard to the PAP, the FCA rules or the Regulations cited above in (a).  It is unfair business practice for a parking firm to state that they are an AOS member, yet fail to comply with the applicable Code of Practice, which the Supreme Court took to be effectively 'regulatory'.  The conduct of your client and their agents (including your firm) has amounted to an unfair commercial practice which is prohibited under regulation 3 of the CPTURs and a misleading action within the meaning of regulations 5 and 6, for which redress is available under regulation 27(J)(b).

In all the premises, the conduct of your clients and their agents amounts to harassment under section 1 of the PFHA.  It is pertinent to adduce the authorities of:

(i) Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd  [2009] EWCA Civ 46

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html 

where Sedley LJ held: 

[52] ''...For my part I would draw attention to the fact [...] that harassment is a crime as well as a tort. Contrary to what was more than once suggested, this does not modify in any way the constituents of the wrong. 

[53] Parliament's intention in passing the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was to criminalise the kind of serious and persistent unwarranted threat which is alleged here, giving a right of civil action as a fallback. In this situation it ought not to be left to hardy individuals to put their savings and homes at risk by suing. The primary responsibility should rest upon local public authorities which possess the means and the statutory powers to bring alleged harassers, however impersonal and powerful, before the local justices.''

and 

Coupon-mad

...

(ii) Harrison v Link Financial Ltd [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html 

 

where HHJ Chambers QC concluded at [83]:

''Cumulatively and damningly is what I find to be the way that MBNA and the Defendant went about recovering their debt. [...] It seems to me that such conduct has no proper function in the recovery of consumer debt. Whatever the strength of the suggestion that the courts should only be a last resort, I can see no legitimate comparison between a series of measured warnings which, after full opportunity for response, lead to legal proceedings and what took place. {...there} ...can be no excuse for conduct of which it must be supposed the sole purpose must have been to make the Claimant's life so difficult that he would come to heel. I cannot think that in a society that is otherwise so sensitive of a consumer's position this is conduct that should countenanced.''

(iii) Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA 311 which confirms that pecuniary loss is not necessary for compensation to be payable and that pure distress is enough.

By reason of the matters aforesaid I have been obliged to deal with unjustified and aggressive correspondence from your clients and their agents which has relentlessly arrived at my family home for over a year.  Throughout, the parking firm and their agents have duplicated each letter, doubling the distress, despite their DPO knowing that two 'exact match' (save from dates) cases are being exploited, with me as the single data subject.  As a Litigant in Person I have suffered substantial damage and distress, causing sleepless nights, headaches and extreme worry.  I consider myself a robust person but I am only human and will attest to the severe effect on my peace of mind, on oath if required by the Judge.  Your clients are the cause of enormous anxiety for me and my family, especially given the current pandemic situation where people are more vulnerable.

Until I sought advice about the issues and was assisted to write this substantive reply, my family initially believed that bailiffs were about to arrive and we were scared by DCBL's letters.  I was seriously upset by what has been painted as if it is a credible threat to my possessions, credit rating and the family home.  It is even more alarming that the DCBL letters were timed by you or your client's deliberate actions, to arrive during the pandemic lockdown this year.  I am certain that most people would have succumbed to the crippling pressure DCBL exert, and paid to avoid bailiffs.  If the bullying and misleading conduct aimed at me regarding these two PCNs is an example of what your clients and DCBLegal do every day, then sanctions by the various authorities are long overdue.

Your clients must take stock of their position and cease immediately and/or deal properly with the dispute.   I expect an apology at the very least but given the fact that your client has already chosen to file a claim, they are estopped from filing more of the same.  If your clients ignore this fair warning, I will file a £900 counterclaim this time, as well as a robust defence and will also pursue my entire costs pursuant to Part 27.14(2)(g) of the Civil Procedure Rules due to their wholly unreasonable conduct.

Yours faithfully, 

Redx

As above , I could not think of the name but it's the estoppel section and explanation etc

Not necessarily law , don't get tunnel vision about laws , it's about procedures , cpr rules etc , plus previous court cases that set precedents , precedents are not laws , but can be binding or can hold sway on other or lesser courts.

Those estoppel sections are part of what goes into the defence , to show they failed and why

You won your other case , not necessarily on laws , but signage etc , so precedents , common sense , various issues that they failed to prove their case to that judge

You may have won on a point of law , but more like they failed on the basics instead

Coupon-mad

Ah if you win the first case then add some embellishment to brag about that and tell them to cease and desist.

1505grandad

Just checking  -  who are the claimants and legal firm involved   -  (I think the experts above will have a good idea anyway).

Minotaur4

1505grandad said:

Just checking  -  who are the claimants and legal firm involved   -  (I think the experts above will have a good idea anyway).

Hi, the claimants are N.a.p.i.e.r and the legal B.W.

Coupon-mad

Fine - just re-write my example response and remove stuff about DCBL and 'Can't Pay?  We'll Take it Away!' 

I have found that BW Legal spout a lot of hot air but don't like robust responses (and nor do DCBL).

What you do NOT need to do is start asking them what the stupid fake added £60 is for...that's such a pointless discussion so don't bother with that.

Minotaur4

Coupon-mad said:

Fine - just re-write my example response and remove stuff about DCBL and 'Can't Pay?  We'll Take it Away!' 

I have found that BW Legal spout a lot of hot air but don't like robust responses (and nor do DCBL).

What you do NOT need to do is start asking them what the stupid fake added £60 is for...that's such a pointless discussion so don't bother with that.

ok thanks. 
Just to confirm, am I sending my reply and own counter LOC to the parking firm/claimant or the legal firm they have instructed to send the LOC? or both? 

Coupon-mad

You can see that's worded purely for the solicitor, because it says 'your client'.

If you want to also send a LBC then do that, but I didn't in the cases I helped with, I just robustly replied to the legal firm.

Minotaur4

ok, i'm guessing they report back to the client anyway. By sending it to both parties I was thinking/hoping that the client might have a bit more sense than the no win no fee solicitors to not go ahead.