EDIT: WITNESS STATEMENT : Highview parking DCB legal

beamerguy

Hpralmo said:

Coupon-mad said:

show the DCBL mug hunters that YOU are not a mug

I said exactly this to DCBL

OMG @beamerguy can you please STOP telling people to do this because it is pointless and people actually think it is allowed (JEEZ).

Does this mean that it is in fact allowed?

OMG come on.  If people don't understand why it's not recoverable, and can't simply read the template defence to understand why it's not recoverable, and prefer to play pointless email tennis with a scammer then believe their version, you may as well pay. 

You have ALL the tools within reach to understand this really simple concept about the added £60.   

Sending that pointless email made you look like a mug to DCBL.

I was just following the advice given to me... I haven't been in this situation before, and thought that they would have to reply honestly. That's why I came back to this forum to seek confirmation of if it was in fact allowed, or not. 
This is all very confusing and they are deliberately intimidating. I'm no expert on this, and it is hard to know who is!
I don't know what to do now that they have requested the payment again, I guess I just ignore them until they send me a court summons or something. Not heard back about the SAR. 
I guess I am a mug because I am new to this situation and am not well informed. 

Again I disagree with Coupon-mad and it would be best she emails me direct.
You are now of course confused, don't blame you.
I don't want you to receive a court claim because it then takes a lot of work on here helping you further.  

The simple fact is that DCBL think you are a mug ..... you are not.   These people are bullies and you know the way bullies carry on until they are stopped.  They can be

nosferatu1001

THese companies lie, misrepresent and are dishonest. Dont believe them. 
Read the template defence, in the newbies thread. ALWAYS read the newbies thread, because nothing about your issue is in any way shape or form unique, or something we havent seen dozens of times before. 

beamerguy

nosferatu1001 said:

THese companies lie, misrepresent and are dishonest. Dont believe them. 
Read the template defence, in the newbies thread. ALWAYS read the newbies thread, because nothing about your issue is in any way shape or form unique, or something we havent seen dozens of times before. 

I agree that the newbies thread is a must read.
As we know people that come here either miss it or struggle to understand it
Yes, we have seen it all before but a newbie has not and they are expected to absorb a lot and we all know what happens with too much information.

One member PM'd me saying "the replies I have received are not very helpful" ?

If we are to help others, that's what this forum is about,  we do not want a forum that is like University Challenge, I can understand why people don't return and are let down

Coupon-mad

Just read the NEWBIES thread at each stage.  It's all covered and stop writing pointless emails and believing the scammers when they reply.

beamerguy

Coupon-mad said:

 and stop writing pointless emails and believing the scammers when they reply.

OH DEAR ?   If you actually want to know what happens to emails you say are pointless, you have my email address

nosferatu1001

The replies are helpful. Theyre just maybe not teh hand holding that someoen wants. Well, we cant do that. Not for everyone. That way lies exhaustion
The newbies thread has a complete guide to the complete process. If someone takes the time to read it, likely more than once, they CAN get there. We KNOW they can get there. 
If that isnt sufficient for people, then they should pay a lawyer to do it for them, because we have limits. 

beamerguy

I cannot comment on letters sent to these companies by others.
With those people I help, I do not expect a suitable reply other than rubbish.  That is the rubbish you take to court with you if they are foolish enough to go that far.

Take Hpralmo and a few posts back where DCBL have quoted utter rubbish. All the regulars know it's rubbish but it is a reply trying to hoodwink the OP ?
The OP is sending a letter to them today basically them it's rubbish and telling them why.
Again pointing out that such add-ons are unlawful and it is considered their claim is unreliable, the reasons being pointed out to the judge and a request for any claim to be struck out

We know that most judges will not openly state "abuse of process".  The OP can provide ample evidence that will help the judge.

At this point it will be up to DCBL to put themselves on the line, we know they do and end up with the ever famous spanking

And yes, the newbies thread has the answers, there are covid rules as well and look what's happening to the virus ?

If I can help those who do not grasp what is being said, I will and certainly would not point them to an outside lawyer 

The hicc-up in the system is the judge and the same applies to these legals

Hpralmo

I think one thing that could be added to the newbies post is about not believing the companies who write to you... It is just really hard to know what to believe. 

I have had an email back 

In accordance with the appeal decision made on 29th July 2020 in Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Julien [2020] EW Mis 12 (CC), it is not correct to propose this claim should be struck out as an ‘abuse of process’ due to the contractual costs claimed. The contractual cost has been added correctly and will not be removed. You may wish to seek independent legal advice to access up to date information.


So I guess I just don't believe them when they say this? I'm not experienced in law so have no way of knowing if what they say is true! So the idea is to now use this correspondence in court against them I think...

@beamerguy

beamerguy

Hpralmo said:

I have had an email back 

In accordance with the appeal decision made on 29th July 2020 in Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Julien [2020] EW Mis 12 (CC), it is not correct to propose this claim should be struck out as an ‘abuse of process’ due to the contractual costs claimed. The contractual cost has been added correctly and will not be removed. You may wish to seek independent legal advice to access up to date information.

DCBL really do need to understand the Semark-Julien case.
The appeals judge said that a strike out should not be used because of Abuse of Process only

The judges around the country have taken this to heart and it is clear that once they see the fake add-on, they go much deeper into the evidence and that is why we see so many cases dismissed

You can see DCBL don't understand when they say "it is not correct to propose this claim should be struck out as an ‘abuse of process’ due to the contractual costs claimed". 
The only contractual amount is the parking ticket ....... anything else added is a fake scam and fails to form a contract.  Judges can still dismiss the case ... as "abuse of process" is actually "Double recovery" and against the courts own ruling

The Semark-Julien case as said many times is a damp squib and is meaningless and very foolish to use by a legal

And they say .. "The contractual cost has been added correctly and will not be removed".
Well it will be removed by a judge because it's a very feeble attempt of double recovery without any contract to support it.

They might even use the fairytale that the code of practice allows them to

It's fair to say that once most judges see the fake add-on, they are smart enough to use their powers to dismiss for other reasons, as they are doing.

Gone are the days that these legals can walk into court with fairytales. DCBL know already that a win for them nowadays is very low

Therefore, in your case, DCBL have failed to explain their legal authority and that makes their claim unreliable

nosferatu1001

They lie
They keep o nlying
Did you look up that case on here, to see the discussion? Did you read the newbies thread template defence, which precisely covers this?