PPC chasing old invoices

fueboy

So today I got some correspondence from DVLA. They have provided proof that Capital Carpark Control manually requested the keepers details x5 - dating from 2015-2017.

I suppose now my defence is that the alleged debt is with a company that no longer exists, as they were with Capital Carpark Control and/or Terry Szmidt, not Capital Carpark Control LTD?

nosferatu1001

No, that is A defence!
You would point out that the alleged debts were never assigned - because noone told you. 

fueboy

nosferatu1001 said:

No, that is A defence!
You would point out that the alleged debts were never assigned - because noone told you. 

Sorry what do you mean nobody told me? 
Nobody told me that CCPC LTD have got my details from an old company CCPC aka sole trader Terry Szmidt?

nosferatu1001

Assignment of debt requires a notice to be sent by old and new debt owners to the debtor, for obvious reasons. 

fueboy

Perfect.
Who do I contact to complain? 
BPA and/or IPC?

nosferatu1001

Why would it be both? 
Why do you think you are complaining? It forms part of a defence. 

Coupon-mad

I've just trawled back though the hundreds of posts and you seem to be at debt collector 'DCBL Recovery' (pointless but misleading demands) stage and haven't had a Letter before Claim from DCBLegal yet. 

So wait for that and then your response to that useless drivel will be to point out that they are mistaken about who offered the contract and their client has no cause of action because they are not the creditor and have been illegally sharing and processing data that they have no right to hold, at all.

Threaten DCBL that you will counter-claim for £900 against their client if a claim arrives, that sum being the bottom rung of the Vento Guidelines used to assess damages for distress arising from a tort, such as the remedies under the PFHA and CPUTRs as well as the DPA 2018.

DCBLegal (when you hear from them - which you HAVEN'T, you've only heard from the stupid 'recovery' arm) don't like threats of counterclaims. They don't cope well with them.  There is an example letter on this forum to DCBL about a £900 counterclaim citing Vento and breaches of those regulations but I have no time to trawl around and  search for it.   But you can!

fueboy

Coupon-mad said:

I've just trawled back though the hundreds of posts and you seem to be at debt collector 'DCBL Recovery' (pointless but misleading demands) stage and haven't had a Letter before Claim from DCBLegal yet. 

So wait for that and then your response to that useless drivel will be to point out that they are mistaken about who offered the contract and their client has no cause of action because they are not the creditor and have been illegally sharing and processing data that they have no right to hold, at all.

Threaten DCBL that you will counter-claim for £900 against their client if a claim arrives, that sum being the bottom rung of the Vento Guidelines used to asses damages for distress arising from a tort, such as the remedies under the PFHA and CPUTRs as well as the DPA 2018.

DCBLegal (when you hear from them - which you HAVEN'T, you've only heard from the stupid 'recovery' arm) don't like threats of counterclaims. They don't cope well with them.  There is an example letter on this forum to DCBL about a £900 counterclaim citing breaches of those regulations but I have no time to trawl around and  search for it.   But you can!

Thanks so much coupon-mad,
I will find and keep the template for future reference. 

fueboy

Hi, again.

Got the letter of claim today.

I've attached.

I'm about to go through the newbies thread again and also looking for the counterclaim threads - if anybody can link me to an appropriate/similar situation to mine if you have time, I'm sure I'll find something eventually if not.

Thanks

blackdog2220

there was another case yesterday with a default ccj , your claim is slightly different in that they are claiming for a non ATA person wjo i suspect will no longer be registered with the dvla 

your claim has been quickly altered to read terry szmidz trading as capitol car parks <full stop> , where as all previous docs you have shown have related to capitol car park patrol LIMITED 

either DCBL have now realised they have been sussed , pr there paper trail is completly wrong 
i cant do bdirect link to case that was default , look for "

DCBL legal CCJ saga "