dcb legal on b of Highview Parking - letter of claim - not keeper nor driver at time of issue of pcn

ken1_2

That's fantastic - Coupon-mad and Umkomaas - thank you very much. 

nosferatu1001

It's very important that you very clearly state you are not the keeper driver or owner on the material date, car sold x date. State you can prove this via.... 

ken1_2

Thanks nosferatu1001 - it has been incorporated
I would appreciate your thoughts on the following draft response

DCBLegal Ltd, Direct House, Greenwood Drive, Manor Park, Runcorn, Cheshire WA7 1UG

Dear Sirs,  

Response to Letter of Claim ref xxxxxx and notice of my counterclaim

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx Ltd v  xxxxx xxxxxx

I refer to DCBLegal's letter dated xx/xx/20 under the above reference. I dispute that there is any debt owed to  xxxxxxx xxxxxxx Ltd. I was neither the keeper or the driver of the car at the material time. I confirm that the address for service for any documents is xxxxxxxx and you and your client MUST now erase any other address(es) from all databases. If your client decides to proceed with this claim knowing that I was neither the keeper nor the driver (the car was sold on xx/xx/xx and will be proven with a completed copy of the V5C) then I will issue a counterclaim for at least £900 plus costs and interest for data abuse, harassment and distress. Distress is now included under Article 82 of the GDPR and the 2018 DPA.

I require Highview Parking Ltd and DCBLegal to erase my data, immediately after replying to confirm that the PCN has been cancelled within the next 7/14 days.

Misleading letter - to be reported to the SRA

I am contacting DCBLegal rather than telephoning the 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.

 

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 DCBLegal 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 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 £165 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  

 

Harassment and notice of proposed £900 counter claim

Due to the nature and wording of the DCBLegal letter, the communication 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 '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.

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 demands from DCBLegal 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 

(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 you. 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 DCBLegal's letter.  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 DCBLegal letter was 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 DCBLegal exert, and paid. If the bullying and misleading conduct aimed at me regarding this PCN 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.  If your clients ignore this fair warning, I will file a £900 counterclaim, 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, 

D_P_Dance

That is what I call a kickarse letter, let us hope it works.  

Coupon-mad

I'm not sure all of this is true?  ''£165 per PCN'' makes no sense for a single PCN.  And if you haven't complained to the SRA, don't say that you have:

Be advised that I have reported DCBLegal to the Solicitors' Regulation Authority because these 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 £165 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  

And the later parts in the latter, about harassment, need to be changed to make sense. Such as where you say 'there was no contract' you should change that to explain and reiterate that (if true) you have never been to that car park and were not the keeper or driver.  Your case is not about there not being a contract; it's about you being the wrong Defendant, the wrong data subject.

Also you should attach your evidence now because DCBLegal will ask for it and waste your time, then sue you if you don't produce it.  So produce it now or tell them what you have done in asking the DVLA for proof and give them an idea of how long it may take for you to produce the DVLA's response (30 days?)..

Umkomaas

You seem to randomly flip and flop between DCBL and DCBLegal. They are two different entities for the purposes of private parking charges ....... unless there are reasons for using different names at different points in your letter. 

Threatening to reporting DCBL to the SRA, for example, would be pointless as they are debt collectors and are not (as I understand it) overseen by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. 

ken1_2

Thank you all for your comments, they are much appreciated and apologies for the late response, this is due to me having been unwell. Coupon-mad – I have made the very helpful changes suggested by you. I would appreciate your comments on the revised draft response. Umkomaas - I referred to DCBL because DCBLegal’s terms state that “14.2. We have an overarching data sharing agreement in place with Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited (“DCBL”)”. https://dcblegal.co.uk/terms/ so having read other threads am assuming that DCBL have been involved in this matter at some point and they are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. and DCBLegal are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, hence the references to both DCBL and DCBLegal. Hope that helps. DCBLegal Ltd, Direct House, Greenwood Drive, Manor Park, Runcorn, Cheshire WA7 1UG Dear Sirs, Response to Letter of Claim ref xxxxxx and notice of my counterclaim xxxxxxx xxxxxxx Ltd v xxxxx xxxxxx I refer to DCBLegal's letter dated xx/xx/20 under the above reference. I dispute that there is any debt owed to xxxxxxx xxxxxxx Ltd. I was neither the keeper or the driver of the car at the material time. I confirm that the address for service for any documents is xxxxxxxx and you and your client MUST now erase any other address(es) from all databases. If your client decides to proceed with this claim knowing that I was neither the keeper nor the driver (the car was sold on xx/xx/xx and I attach a completed copy of the V5C) then I will issue a counterclaim for at least £900 plus costs and interest for data abuse, harassment and distress. Distress is now included under Article 82 of the GDPR and the 2018 DPA. I require Highview Parking Ltd and DCBLegal to cease and desist from sending me alarmist and unwarranted communications and note that the alleged debt is disputed and entirely denied. Erase my data immediately after replying to confirm that the PCN has been cancelled within the next 7/14 days. Harassment and notice of proposed £900 counter claim Due to the nature and wording of the DCBLegal letter, the communication 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 'relevant obligation' that related to myself. I have never been to the car park stated in the letter and was neither the keeper nor the driver. Accordingly, the processing of my DVLA data was not “necessary for the performance of, or commencing, a contract”. 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 demands from DCBLegal pays no regard to the PAP 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 (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 you. 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 DCBLegal's letter. 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 DCBLegal letter was 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 DCBLegal exert, and paid. If the bullying and misleading conduct aimed at me regarding this PCN 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. If your clients ignore this fair warning, I will file a £900 counterclaim, 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,

ken1_2

Sorry, all the formatting seems to have disappeared from my last post. I am re-posting, hopefully this will work.

Thank you all for your comments, they are much appreciated and apologies for the late response, this is due to me having been unwell.

Coupon-mad – I have made the very helpful changes suggested by you. I would appreciate your comments on the revised draft response.

Umkomaas - I referred to DCBL because DCBLegal’s terms state that “14.2. We have an overarching data sharing agreement in place with Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited (“DCBL”)”.

https://dcblegal.co.uk/terms/

so having read other threads am assuming that DCBL have been involved in this matter at some point and they are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

and

DCBLegal are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, hence the references to both DCBL and DCBLegal. Hope that helps.

 

 

DCBLegal Ltd, Direct House, Greenwood Drive, Manor Park, Runcorn, Cheshire WA7 1UG

Dear Sirs,  

Response to Letter of Claim ref xxxxxx and notice of my counterclaim

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx Ltd v  xxxxx xxxxxx

I refer to DCBLegal's letter dated xx/xx/20 under the above reference. I dispute that there is any debt owed to  xxxxxxx xxxxxxx Ltd. I was neither the keeper or the driver of the car at the material time. I confirm that the address for service for any documents is xxxxxxxx and you and your client MUST now erase any other address(es) from all databases. If your client decides to proceed with this claim knowing that I was neither the keeper nor the driver (the car was sold on xx/xx/xx and I attach a completed copy of the V5C) then I will issue a counterclaim for at least £900 plus costs and interest for data abuse, harassment and distress. Distress is now included under Article 82 of the GDPR and the 2018 DPA.

I require Highview Parking Ltd and DCBLegal to cease and desist from sending me alarmist and unwarranted communications and note that the alleged debt is disputed and entirely denied. Erase my data immediately after replying to confirm that the PCN has been cancelled within the next 7/14 days.

Harassment and notice of proposed £900 counter claim

Due to the nature and wording of the DCBLegal letter, the communication 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 'relevant obligation' that related to myself.   I have never been to the car park stated in the letter and was neither the keeper nor the driver. Accordingly, the processing of my DVLA data was not “necessary for the performance of, or commencing, a contract”. 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 demands from DCBLegal pays no regard to the PAP 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 

(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 you. 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 DCBLegal's letter.  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 DCBLegal letter was 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 DCBLegal exert, and paid. If the bullying and misleading conduct aimed at me regarding this PCN 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.  If your clients ignore this fair warning, I will file a £900 counterclaim, 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,  

Coupon-mad

Looks fine now, but put this as a separate paragraph, not buried as part of the first:

If your client decides to proceed with this claim knowing that I was neither the keeper nor the driver (the car was sold on xx/xx/xx and I attach a completed copy of the V5C) then I will issue a counterclaim for at least £900 plus costs and interest for data abuse, harassment and distress. Distress is now included under Article 82 of the GDPR and the 2018 DPA.

D_P_Dance

Rather a lot of eggs in that puddling imo, it is only a piddling parking ticket.  have you complained to you MP?  Grist for the mill.