DCB Legal Letter of Claim for 3-4 year old PCN

KeithP

I repeat...

hitman126 said:

What has incensed me, even more is the fact they falsely claim that "....The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not". That's a load of nonsense as the driver did no such thing!!

Why on earth have you now decided to reveal the identity of the driver? I have edited my quote of your post. I suggest you do something similar before the parking company reads it.

Your post of 4 January at 3:21PM still needs editing.

hitman126

KeithP said:

I repeat...

hitman126 said:

What has incensed me, even more is the fact they falsely claim that "....The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not". That's a load of nonsense as the driver did no such thing!!

Why on earth have you now decided to reveal the identity of the driver? I have edited my quote of your post. I suggest you do something similar before the parking company reads it.

Your post of 4 January at 3:21PM still needs editing.

@KeithP, sorry you've lost me on that one. I don't recall revealing the identity of any driver on the thread, so kindly elaborate on the point you've raised. 

1505grandad

The (driver) agreed to pay within 28 days but did not". That's a load of nonsense as (I) did no such thing!! 

Umkomaas

hitman126 said:

KeithP said:

I repeat...

hitman126 said:

What has incensed me, even more is the fact they falsely claim that "....The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not". That's a load of nonsense as the driver did no such thing!!

Why on earth have you now decided to reveal the identity of the driver? I have edited my quote of your post. I suggest you do something similar before the parking company reads it.

Your post of 4 January at 3:21PM still needs editing.

@KeithP, sorry you've lost me on that one. I don't recall revealing the identity of any driver on the thread, so kindly elaborate on the point you've raised. 

1505grandad said:

The (driver) agreed to pay within 28 days but did not". That's a load of nonsense as (I) did no such thing!! 

'Doh' moment imminent! 🤦‍♂️

KeithP

hitman126 said:

KeithP said:

I repeat...

hitman126 said:

What has incensed me, even more is the fact they falsely claim that "....The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not". That's a load of nonsense as the driver did no such thing!!

Why on earth have you now decided to reveal the identity of the driver? I have edited my quote of your post. I suggest you do something similar before the parking company reads it.

Your post of 4 January at 3:21PM still needs editing.

@KeithP, sorry you've lost me on that one. I don't recall revealing the identity of any driver on the thread, so kindly elaborate on the point you've raised. 

In that post you have told the world the exact relationship between the driver and the keeper.

Clearly they already know the name and address of the vehicle's keeper, and your post of 4 January at 3:21PM currently gives them enough information to determine the full name and address of the driver.

Look carefully at my edited quote of your post and see how you should change your 4 January at 3:21PM post.

Although it has to be said, that info has been available to everyone for two whole days now. It may already be too late.

hitman126

1505grandad said:

The (driver) agreed to pay within 28 days but did not". That's a load of nonsense as (I) did no such thing!! 

Umkomaas said:

hitman126 said:

KeithP said:

I repeat...

hitman126 said:

What has incensed me, even more is the fact they falsely claim that "....The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not". That's a load of nonsense as the driver did no such thing!!

Why on earth have you now decided to reveal the identity of the driver? I have edited my quote of your post. I suggest you do something similar before the parking company reads it.

Your post of 4 January at 3:21PM still needs editing.

@KeithP, sorry you've lost me on that one. I don't recall revealing the identity of any driver on the thread, so kindly elaborate on the point you've raised. 

1505grandad said:

The (driver) agreed to pay within 28 days but did not". That's a load of nonsense as (I) did no such thing!! 

'Doh' moment imminent! 🤦‍♂️

lol

hitman126

Thank you guys.
I admire and appreciate your attention to detail. As @Umkomaas said earlier, that was indeed a proper "Doh" moment

hitman126

BrownTrout said:

hitman126 said:

BrownTrout said:

Ive pmd a response to send to them use it as it is.  there are also two email addresses for DCB LEGAL you should use both when you respond.

@BrownTrout thanks ever so much. Will follow your kind advice.

when they reply (a proper reply) can you let us know please, it will go on hold and be referred back to their client so may take a little while for you to get that

Sincere apologies for missing your request but please find below the initial response received from DCB Legal, having sent them the letter you very kindly advised I send them.

By the way, not sure how significant this is when countering the arguments put forward by DCB Legal, but between 22nd Nov to Dec 27 2020, I was actually away from the UK.

Coupon-mad

Refute their claim that a victim of a private parking scam 'fine' would or should have 'nominated' a driver because no-one who researches the matter would ever be so naive as to throw a driver under the out-of-control bus driven (and ploughing a furrow to court) by a robo-claim solicitor.  In fact, Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 provides for no such obligation.  And point out that they cannot rely on the balance of probabilities because (what?  the car had more than one family driver at the time/you were away and were not driving - if true?).

By the way, not sure how significant this is when countering the arguments put forward by DCB Legal, but between 22nd Nov to Dec 27 2020, I was actually away from the UK.

Do you mean you were away in the year of the PCN(s) and were NOT driving?  You put 2020 - 3 weeks ago, did you mean that? 

If you can prove you were not the driver, then supply that proof right now to DCBLegal and tell them if they/their clients now start a court claim, knowing that you were not the driver, you will counterclaim against their client for abuse of DVLA data (DPA 2018 breach) and harassment from start to finish, showing evidence of an established, long-term and repeated course of conduct of threatening letters that attempted to mislead a keeper into paying in a case where the POFA was not complied with, culminating in this latest admission from DCBLegal themselves, that the meritless claim teeters on the edge of an unsafe and unlawful presumption that ''the keeper must have been driving'' because the keeper (quite understandably) didn't engage with the threatograms along the way.

hitman126

Coupon-mad said:

Refute their claim that a victim of a private parking scam 'fine' would or should have 'nominated' a driver because no-one who researches the matter would ever be so naive as to throw a driver under the out-of-control bus driven (and ploughing a furrow to court) by a robo-claim solicitor.  In fact, Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 provides for no such obligation.  And point out that they cannot rely on the balance of probabilities because (what?  the car had more than one family driver at the time/you were away and were not driving - if true?).

By the way, not sure how significant this is when countering the arguments put forward by DCB Legal, but between 22nd Nov to Dec 27 2020, I was actually away from the UK.

Do you mean you were away in the year of the PCN(s) and were NOT driving?  You put 2020 - 3 weeks ago, did you mean that? 

If you can prove you were not the driver, then supply that proof right now to DCBLegal and tell them if they/their clients now start a court claim, knowing that you were not the driver, you will counterclaim against their client for abuse of DVLA data (DPA 2018 breach) and harassment from start to finish, showing evidence of an established, long-term and repeated course of conduct of threatening letters that attempted to mislead a keeper into paying in a case where the POFA was not complied with, culminating in this latest admission from DCBLegal themselves, that the meritless claim teeters on the edge of an unsafe and unlawful presumption that ''the keeper must have been driving'' because the keeper (quite understandably) didn't engage with the threatograms along the way.

@Coupon-mad, just a slight clarification.
1. DCB Legal claim that the alleged contravention took place in March 2017.
2. I was absent from the UK between 22nd Nov 2020 to Dec 27 2020. The only reason I made mention of this was with specific reference to the 6th paragraph of DCB Legal's letter, where they mentioned that I had 30 days from the date of their email ".....to make payment or to nominate a named driver".