DCBL letters ..... forum group thread

RagingMad

Before Covid hit i received a Letter before County Court Claim.  Which, with the help of the good people on here, i replied too.  Then Covid hit and i heard nothing.  NOW, i too have just received the Notice of Debt Recovery letter from dcbl (Ltd).  Almost verbatim to examples show on here. 

Reading this great thread has helped, as i'd previously been issued an LBCCC i wasn't quite sure where i was in this whole process.

I found on another site, a basic sod off template letter to these people: In debt? Get them to Prove It - With Letter Templates) 2021 (moneynerd.co.uk)

Basically starts:

I believe that I do not owe the money that you are claiming. You will be aware that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Consumer Credit sourcebook says:

A firm should neither ignore nor disregard a customer’s claim that his debt has been settled and/or is disputed and must stop making demands for payment without providing the customer clear justification and/or evidence as to why the claim is not valid. (7.5.3)

AND goes on with more references about harassment etc.

So my question is,  would it be better to ignore (as per advice on here so far) or to send this sod off letter?  

My thinking is, that sending this letter is a shot back across the bows and that it lets them know that i won't go silently into the night.  If i ignore then they might send the LBCCC in the hope that i'll ignore that and they can then end up with a default ccj against me.

Thoughts?

Timeouts

RagingMad said:

Before Covid hit i received a Letter before County Court Claim.  Which, with the help of the good people on here, i replied too.  Then Covid hit and i heard nothing.  NOW, i too have just received the Notice of Debt Recovery letter from dcbl (Ltd).  Almost verbatim to examples show on here. 

Reading this great thread has helped, as i'd previously been issued an LBCCC i wasn't quite sure where i was in this whole process.

I found on another site, a basic sod off template letter to these people: In debt? Get them to Prove It - With Letter Templates) 2021 (moneynerd.co.uk)

Basically starts:

I believe that I do not owe the money that you are claiming. You will be aware that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Consumer Credit sourcebook says:

A firm should neither ignore nor disregard a customer’s claim that his debt has been settled and/or is disputed and must stop making demands for payment without providing the customer clear justification and/or evidence as to why the claim is not valid. (7.5.3)

AND goes on with more references about harassment etc.

So my question is,  would it be better to ignore (as per advice on here so far) or to send this sod off letter?  

My thinking is, that sending this letter is a shot back across the bows and that it lets them know that i won't go silently into the night.  If i ignore then they might send the LBCCC in the hope that i'll ignore that and they can then end up with a default ccj against me.

Thoughts?

You see, DCBL don't speak English and they will not understand what you are saying .... hence they will ignore ...... 

They are good at sending out copy and paste letters and if they are from DCB LTD they are debt collector letters in their raw form.

No point in replying to these. If you get a 30 day letter befor claim adding a FAKE amount, the fun begins because that is start of a dodgly claim which will be signed by Yasmin Mia AND IS NOT TRUE

RagingMad

Timeouts said:

You see, DCBL don't speak English and they will not understand what you are saying .... hence they will ignore ...... 

They are good at sending out copy and paste letters and if they are from DCB LTD they are debt collector letters in their raw form.

No point in replying to these. If you get a 30 day letter befor claim adding a FAKE amount, the fun begins because that is start of a dodgly claim which will be signed by Yasmin Mia AND IS NOT TRUE

Well i shall duly ignore it then.  And they did add an extra £70 to the original PCN of £100. 

Timeouts

RagingMad said:

Timeouts said:

You see, DCBL don't speak English and they will not understand what you are saying .... hence they will ignore ...... 

They are good at sending out copy and paste letters and if they are from DCB LTD they are debt collector letters in their raw form.

No point in replying to these. If you get a 30 day letter befor claim adding a FAKE amount, the fun begins because that is start of a dodgly claim which will be signed by Yasmin Mia AND IS NOT TRUE

Well i shall duly ignore it then.  And they did add an extra £70 to the original PCN of £100. 

Don't forget if it's a letter before claim giving you 30 days to respond, come back here because that is when the fun starts with DCBL

RagingMad

Timeouts said:

RagingMad said:

Timeouts said:

You see, DCBL don't speak English and they will not understand what you are saying .... hence they will ignore ...... 

They are good at sending out copy and paste letters and if they are from DCB LTD they are debt collector letters in their raw form.

No point in replying to these. If you get a 30 day letter befor claim adding a FAKE amount, the fun begins because that is start of a dodgly claim which will be signed by Yasmin Mia AND IS NOT TRUE

Well i shall duly ignore it then.  And they did add an extra £70 to the original PCN of £100. 

Don't forget if it's a letter before claim giving you 30 days to respond, come back here because that is when the fun starts with DCBL

I will.  I already have a thread for the initial PCN.  If i get the 30 day letter, i'll update here but carry it on in that initial thread, which i'll link to.  I REALLY REALLY want to fight these guys.  I know how stressful it was.  I thought i should have just paid the £60.  But then i thought, sod it, i didn't do anything wrong.  But i naively appealed to CPP and then to POPLA (before i found this forum).  They clearly were never interested in my appeal or even bothered to read it.  But the thing that really hacks me off is that this is a Hospital Car Park and this could happen to someone who is elderly, someone visiting a terminally ill relative, someone with mental health issues.  The stress this has caused me, whats it doing to people like that.

So i hope they do send the 30 day letter, and with your good help, i hope to screw these ******** to the wall 

D_P_Dance

The extra £70  s almost certainly unlaeful, read this

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

joker36399

Hi  any help would be appreciated,  ive now received a notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track in relation to a parking charge from 2015, which ive attached. Ive also attached the original claim form sent to me.  The problem is that this was so long ago that ive been uncertain who was driving at the time but on digging deeper it appears my partner was driving and was working at a store for the day, he remembers have a conversation with the store and the security guard about him being allowed to park there as he was working in the store so not sure if thats an avenue we can.pursue if it goes to court. Or would you recommend mediation? I dont want to end up with a hefty fine/costs (if thats a possibility)

Any help with this would be greatly appreciated 🙏

Timeouts

Another Highview FAKE claim for 2015
The claim form is April, what did you do about this
Where in the country was this ?

Read backwards on this thread please.  Nobody can remember back to 2015 and that includes the judge.

There is no such thing as a parking ticket for £155 or damages.

You need to SAR Highview ... today for the data they hold on you.

Back in 2015 the signs and ticket would not have mentioned damages and as the signs form a contract the DCBL claim is fake and is signed as a statement of truth by Yasmin Mia

In your SAR, ask Highview for images of the sign dated 2015.  If they refuse then it will be up to DCBL to prove their case

You must read the NEWBIES thread please

Umkomaas

@joker36399 - as you are now at the business end of things, you need to start a separate thread of your own so you can receive specific, bespoke advice. This generic thread is full of different questions and answers from a myriad of cases, too diverse and confusing to deal with your particular court claim. 

joker36399

Timeouts said:

Another Highview FAKE claim for 2015
The claim form is April, what did you do about this
Where in the country was this ?

Read backwards on this thread please.  Nobody can remember back to 2015 and that includes the judge.

There is no such thing as a parking ticket for £155 or damages.

You need to SAR Highview ... today for the data they hold on you.

Back in 2015 the signs and ticket would not have mentioned damages and as the signs form a contract the DCBL claim is fake and is signed as a statement of truth by Yasmin Mia

In your SAR, ask Highview for images of the sign dated 2015.  If they refuse then it will be up to DCBL to prove their case

You must read the NEWBIES thread please

This was my defence  (probably all wrong!)

1). The Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol in that there was no compliant “Letter before County Court Claim”, under the Practice Direction.  The Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

(i) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
(ii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
(iii) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
(iv) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
(v) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
(vi) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

a) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

2). It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The identity of the driver on this date is unknown to the Defendant. The Defendant was not the only user of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was or was not driving on an unremarkable date and unspecified time nearly 5 years ago. 

3)

3A. The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited for a Total amount of £297.25 (inclusive of £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs) from an initial claim request of £155. The Defendant understands that this relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle xxxxxxx over 5 years ago on 26th November, 2015 at Parc Fforestfach Retail Park. The defendant has not owned the aforementioned vehicle since 2016.

3B. The defendant cannot recall the alleged contravention or identify the possible driver due to the time elapsed. The defendant is aware of the carpark in question, as a previously frequent visitor to the retail park, including being a regular shopper at both the Tesco and H&M stores and Is also aware that another driver may have used the car park for work purposes in which they were entitled to do so for extended periods. 

3C. The claimant has not stipulated what the breach of contract was, nor provided any ANPR images or timings during which the aforementioned contravention is alleged to have taken place; merely that a breach of contract occurred. The defendant has tried hard to determine what the contravention could have been though lack of evidence provided thus far from the claimant has failed to identify either the driver or the circumstances. The defendant reserves the right to expand on facts should the claimant supply further usable evidence.

3D. The defendant acknowledges there was signs outlining a maximum stay on this carpark however it is possible, but not admitted to, the PCN may have resulted in another insured party having use of said vehicle for the purpose of working at a particular shop on the 26th November 2015, although when the vehicle was used for this purpose and they would have been entitled to park on the site for an extended period, the onsite security guard would have been notified for the purpose of logging an extended stay of the vehicle.   

4). The Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question notes that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), Schedule 4.

5). In the Particulars of Claim ('POC') it is stated that the Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper but the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that Defendant was also the driver. The Defendant cannot be held liable for the charges as the keeper of the vehicle. The Claimant did not properly serve a compliant notice to keeper in strict accordance with Paragraph 9, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of the PoFA, which states that notice to keeper must be delivered within the relevant period. Where the relevant period is defined as the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

6). Following on from [4] & [5], where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in PoFA, Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their POC which were signed under a statement of truth by the Claimant's legal representative who should know (as the Claimant undoubtedly does) that it is untrue to state that the Defendant is 'liable as keeper'.  This can never be the case with a Highview Parking Limited claim because this parking firm, same as any Group Nexus company, have never used the POFA 2012 wording, of their own volition.  Not only does the POC include this misleading untruth, but the Claimant has also added an unidentified sum in false 'damages' to enhance the claims.  So sparse is their statement of case, that the Claimant has failed to even state any facts about the alleged breach or the amount of the parking charge that was on the signage, because it cannot have been over £100. Which then leads to the question, how does the Claimant arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £222.25. The Defendant has excluded the £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

7). The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015).

8). The Defendant does not recall receiving the original PCN. The Defendant upon receiving the Claim Form has subsequently requested a copy via Subject Access Request to Group Nexus (who through research the Defendant now understand own Highview Parking Limited).

9). The Defendant does recall receiving a "debt collection" letter some years previously. The letter appeared to demand immediate action on the part of the Defendant which made the Defendant feel uneasy and harassed in to hastily handing over money in order to avoid further costs down the line, court visits and an impending CCJ that would impact on the Defendant livelihood. The Defendant ignored this threatening “Debt Collection” type letter believing it could be fictitious.