DCB Legal Letter of Claim - What Can I Expect Next?

Umkomaas

Got it. It's @Minotaur4

PTRed

Thank you - was trying every spelling/mis-spelling of Minotaur I could think of.
@Coupon-mad glad to see somebody got their claim dropped, unfortunately - in this case, the only communication I have from either the PPC (First Parking) or DCB Legal were the LBC and the subsequent email chains. I am being pursued for 4 PCNs (that until the LBC I had no knowledge of), but all together. Not sure if it's still going to be relevant? 
I'm sure they probably did send a lot of scary letters, except none of them got to me, until the LBC!

Coupon-mad

Just adapt the one I wrote.  You can do it.

Redx

PTRed said:

Thank you - was trying every spelling/mis-spelling of Minotaur I could think of.
@Coupon-mad glad to see somebody got their claim dropped, unfortunately - in this case, the only communication I have from either the PPC (First Parking) or DCB Legal were the LBC and the subsequent email chains. I am being pursued for 4 PCNs (that until the LBC I had no knowledge of), but all together. Not sure if it's still going to be relevant? 
I'm sure they probably did send a lot of scary letters, except none of them got to me, until the LBC!

None of that background is relevant until a court claim

The claimant has no interest in your postal arrangements providing they obtained keeper details from the DVLA at the time and posted invoices to them as they are required to do

PTRed

@Redx I just mean that it's hard for me to include the parts of the letter that rely on harassment, because I have only ever received one letter and replies to my own emails.

Redx

Chasing up old invoices is not classed as harassment

The Claimants case is they issued 4 PCN s to the registered keeper of the vehicle deemed to have breached a parking contract , with details of the keeper obtained from the DVLA , the standard process , this may be followed up with letters and dcbl chasing you under legitimate due process

None of this is harassment

Rewrite the letter as applies to your case , as suggested by coupon mad , or ignore as suggested by me , your choice

Harassment is a high bar to prove

Think yourself lucky that these were not council tickets or speeding tickets

Coupon-mad

PTRed said:

@Redx I just mean that it's hard for me to include the parts of the letter that rely on harassment, because I have only ever received one letter and replies to my own emails.

That's true.  What about any grounds for a counterclaim though?  What were the PCNs for?

PTRed

I have now received the Claim Form, I understand the steps from here. 

One thing I could do with help on:
All of the claims relate to PCNs from 2019, I work in the location of the car park and there are several reasons why I might have been on campus momentarily on those days, or even in the middle of getting a parking ticket (which I wouldn't have kept for no reason) - what do I do for my defence if, at the moment, I am not sure why I was there. 

Le_Kirk

PTRed said:

I have now received the Claim Form, I understand the steps from here. 
One thing I could do with help on:
All of the claims relate to PCNs from 2019, I work in the location of the car park and there are several reasons why I might have been on campus momentarily on those days, or even in the middle of getting a parking ticket (which I wouldn't have kept for no reason) - what do I do for my defence if, at the moment, I am not sure why I was there. 

Does it matter why you were there?  Just use the template defence and adapt paragraphs 2 & 3 to refute the particulars of claim (POC).  If, for example, the POC states you had no permit, you say you did, it it relates to overstaying, you didn't overstay. I haven't read back through your thread.  Just adapt and post your TWO paragraphs here for critique.

D_P_Dance

What you have experienced is not, imo, harassment.  Phoning you at your office or at home late at night is harassment.  Threatening to send people to your houdse is harassment.