UKPC / DCBL Letter

LewisN2

Coupon-mad said:

I didn't say don't reply.

The NEWBIES thread already says how to reply and NEVER to fill in the reply forms.  And it says exactly what the National Debtline says.

And you don't have a debt.

Coupon-mad said:

I didn't say don't reply.

The NEWBIES thread already says how to reply and NEVER to fill in the reply forms.  And it says exactly what the National Debtline says.

And you don't have a debt.

Sorry am I missing something here? The newbies forum says to never fill in the letter before claim / letter of claim reply forms - this directly contradicts what the national debt line says?

i was asking the reason why I shouldn’t fill in the reply form.

Coupon-mad

Because they are designed for debt claims and ask intrusive and inappropriate questions about affordability that have no relevance to a parking charge that is in dispute.

You don't need to consult the National Debtline just because the LBC pushes you into that mindset by 'kindly' suggesting those charities.

You are not a debtor.

patient_dream

LewisN2 said:

Coupon-mad said:

I didn't say don't reply.

The NEWBIES thread already says how to reply and NEVER to fill in the reply forms.  And it says exactly what the National Debtline says.

And you don't have a debt.

Coupon-mad said:

I didn't say don't reply.

The NEWBIES thread already says how to reply and NEVER to fill in the reply forms.  And it says exactly what the National Debtline says.

And you don't have a debt.

i was asking the reason why I shouldn’t fill in the reply form.

As coupon-mad clearly says

PAP (Pre action protocol) is a requirement for the legal to provide you with these forms.
These forms are to reflect your current financial situation such as debts 

Parking tickets are not debts, they are only speculative invoices from an unregulated industry. As such as you do not have a debt, only a court can decide if you owe any money.


The forms are for the bin, you do not want to be giving a scam industry your personal info.

If you want to contact the legal, you just deny any debt and ask them for their legal authority to add fake amounts above the actual parking ticket charge.

The National debtline including the CAB don't have a clue how to handle unregulated private parking tickets .... this forum does

LewisN2

patient_dream said:

LewisN2 said:

Coupon-mad said:

I didn't say don't reply.

The NEWBIES thread already says how to reply and NEVER to fill in the reply forms.  And it says exactly what the National Debtline says.

And you don't have a debt.

Coupon-mad said:

I didn't say don't reply.

The NEWBIES thread already says how to reply and NEVER to fill in the reply forms.  And it says exactly what the National Debtline says.

And you don't have a debt.

i was asking the reason why I shouldn’t fill in the reply form.

As coupon-mad clearly says

PAP (Pre action protocol) is a requirement for the legal to provide you with these forms.
These forms are to reflect your current financial situation such as debts 

Parking tickets are not debts, they are only speculative invoices from an unregulated industry. As such as you do not have a debt, only a court can decide if you owe any money.


The forms are for the bin, you do not want to be giving a scam industry your personal info.

If you want to contact the legal, you just deny any debt and ask them for their legal authority to add fake amounts above the actual parking ticket charge.

The National debtline including the CAB don't have a clue how to handle unregulated private parking tickets .... this forum does

Yes I wasn’t planning on giving them any personal information I was going to reply to them by denying the debt and I wasn’t giving to fill in the financial page, it allows me to easily request the 30 day financial advice on the form too 

patient_dream

LewisN2 said:

patient_dream said:

LewisN2 said:

Coupon-mad said:

I didn't say don't reply.

The NEWBIES thread already says how to reply and NEVER to fill in the reply forms.  And it says exactly what the National Debtline says.

And you don't have a debt.

Coupon-mad said:

I didn't say don't reply.

The NEWBIES thread already says how to reply and NEVER to fill in the reply forms.  And it says exactly what the National Debtline says.

And you don't have a debt.

i was asking the reason why I shouldn’t fill in the reply form.

As coupon-mad clearly says

PAP (Pre action protocol) is a requirement for the legal to provide you with these forms.
These forms are to reflect your current financial situation such as debts 

Parking tickets are not debts, they are only speculative invoices from an unregulated industry. As such as you do not have a debt, only a court can decide if you owe any money.


The forms are for the bin, you do not want to be giving a scam industry your personal info.

If you want to contact the legal, you just deny any debt and ask them for their legal authority to add fake amounts above the actual parking ticket charge.

The National debtline including the CAB don't have a clue how to handle unregulated private parking tickets .... this forum does

Yes I wasn’t planning on giving them any personal information I was going to reply to them by denying the debt and I wasn’t giving to fill in the financial page, it allows me to easily request the 30 day financial advice on the form too 

Just a letter will suffice

1: deny the claim
2: request their legal authority to add unknown amounts
3: that you are taking debt advice and to extend it for a further 30 days

LewisN2

ok, i was wondering how many of these letter of claims actually turn into court claims when dealing with DCB Legal?

patient_dream

LewisN2 said:

ok, i was wondering how many of these letter of claims actually turn into court claims when dealing with DCB Legal?

There are no stats on this other than what we see here and that is a lot.

4 year old tickets are not easy to prove by them because everything is based on what happened 4 years ago and that includes pictures of signs.
That is where your SAR will help you.

A lot of these huff 'n puff letters are to scare you and it's impossible to know if they will issue a court claim.

Many of their claims are dismissed anyway by the courts.  A recent DCBL case was a car crash for them. They should have known better. It ended up they that led the PPC into slaughter which cost the PPC £1000

WORTH A READ
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6308128/vcs-caught-issuing-pcns-on-public-highway-hit-for-1-000-counterclaim/p1

This is why it is vital that you get as much info as possible which wold help a judge decide if it goes that far

LewisN2

i got an email back from the DPO for information to idenfify myself 

"'As we have received your request via email, we will need to take steps to verify your identity before we can process your request.

Please can you confirm your identity as per the following for verification purposes (if you are the keeper of the vehicle, if you are not, we would need the information of the keeper of the vehicle as well as confirmation that you are authorised to receive the subject access request documents):

 

i) the vehicle registration number the ticket was issued against

ii) your Parking Charge Notice reference number'

Once we are satisfied with the information you have provided us, we will then process your subject access request."

I am no longer the keeper of the vehicle nor do i know who is the keeper of the vehicle anymore but i provided the i put the vehicle registration number + the PCN reference number and hopefully this will be all.

was they requesting details on the keeper now? or only the PCN reference and vehicle number? 

patient_dream

LewisN2 said:

i got an email back from the DPO for information to idenfify myself 

i) the vehicle registration number the ticket was issued against

ii) your Parking Charge Notice reference number'

That's fine.  As you are no longer the keeper there is no V5. 

In case they want more proof, do not provide personal info such as a drivers licence etc.
A redacted utility bill will suffice

LewisN2

so guys i have recieved my sar - so it appears there was a sign but on the other side of the road - no yellow markings but have since been added.... shows it should have been there in the first place - i wont upload pictures from both PCN because it is more or less the same pictures same angles etc