DCBL letters ..... forum group thread

D_P_Dance

£50m of which is most likely t be unlawful.  Read this and complain to your MP.

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

patient_dream

DontBeABother said:

I received a final reminder from DCB LTD for an unpaid parking charge of £150 around 2 months ago. I sent a SAR and had a reply a few days ago. Today, I have received another letter titled 'Notice of Intended Legal Action'. Just to clarify from what I read in on a previous reply from this thread, I assume I'm just good to ignore this letter?

Thanks in advance.

Have been watching his thread and I have received 3 of the same letters 

Wish they would hurry up, it's all gettig very boring 

Loob3

Hi, I've read the newbies post which is very helpful. I received my first letter at the beginning of the month from DCBL for a letter of claim with a £155 fine for overstaying in a free retail car park in 2017! If I remember rightly I rushed to the car and believe I was up to 10mins late, but of course ANPR tracked it and I ignored the original fine received 4 years ago. I've been in touch with the landowner who are waiting on info from the parking firm re SAR. My 30 days is up immimently though, so my main question is if I email DCBL to place the case on hold will they action it in time and if there's no success with the land owner, can I pay the £155 that's on hold rather than go to the next small court stage? I know I can fight all the way, but I'm stressed enough with other things in my life at the moment and don't need the aggro, although I really don't want to pay. Thanks

Coupon-mad

You are not going to at some chancer £155 so put that out of your mind and options!

The retail park will cancel it, you just need to be persistent and find the right person, it may not be one single shop who contracted with the PPC.  More likely the managing agent property company unless it’s a single retailer there, like Tesco.

which PPC?

which car park/where?

DCBLegal or DCB Ltd?

England, Wales or Scotland?

Voyeurmse

beamerguy said:

holderness said:Tired11 said:

Umkomaas said:

Castle said:

I think that "Autosec" is a trading name of Auto Security Ltd, (but they don't appear on either the BPA/IPC current membership lists).

Right, yep, the one whose owner has a very colourful past life!  Gross.

These alleged debts really should die once ATA AOS status is lost/discontinued!

@Tired11 - have you complained to the landowner and ask them if they are content for this operator to be suing you at this terrible covid time?  Try and get them to confirm they don't want this to happen. Tell them you're going to go to the Press about it and you're sure they wouldn't want to be mentioned.

Yes indeed, the gentleman with the significant criminal record.
To confirm, it is Autosec of Kingston upon Hull. The company still exists from my searches, but Del-Grosso is the only employee/owner.

@Umkomaas I'm in the process of trying to get the details of the landowner, to do what you are recommending (as I've seen earlier in this thread). Essentially, it's from parking in residential parking when my own parking pass was slightly obscured (after some harsh braking on the way back from work), and also parking at my partner's address, and her guest parking pass had been misplaced by her housemate one time. These are things that were breaching the rules of the parking I do realise, however I was stubborn all those years ago and disagreed with them, but struggled to get in touch back then (this is 2016/17).

Current plan:
1. Awaiting SAR replies for both me and my partner (requests sent 15th March)
2. Have updated our address for all tickets (we literally received the DCBL letters the week we were moving...)
3. In the process of getting information for who the landowner is in the respective tickets.

I'm a little burnt out from working in ICU/Anaesthetics for the past year so admit I'm not too hot on this, but I am slowly implementing everything all you fantastic forum members have advised.
Thank you all.

Redx said:

holderness said:

Castle said:

I think that "Autosec" is a trading name of Auto Security Ltd, (but they don't appear on either the BPA/IPC current membership lists).

Snap, Ive just started a seperate thread on this guy, seems he has sold his contracts and is trying to milk any unresolved tickets, its Hull right?

Parking companies are not allowed to sell on alleged debts

But dcbl can sub contract as a debt collector

he hasn't sold the 'debts' he has sold his site contracts. he is also using DCBL to collect all unresolved tickets

Then a SAR to them for the info they hold. Ask for pictures of the signs at the time.  These are on site pictures at the time. If they fail to provide then DCBL will have to provide the signage and my guess is that there are no such pictures which then gives DCBL a mega problem least of all explaining the DCBL fake add-on of £60/£70 

Like all the DCBL rubbish coming through, they are clueless.  But DCBL are intent of making themselves look like idiots

I have photos taken within carpark from June 16.  

I had a pass with private key fob. I have landowners/management co details if you want to contact me. 

I’m assuming that as previous debt letters for same PCN came from TNC debt collectors (which I ignored) I can now also request SAR from them as well as Autosec?  I have had the 30 day letter of claim from DCBLegal now so I expect a court hearing is imminent. 

All the help I can get would be gratefully received. 

We should arrange a local meeting in a nearby shop (happy to sort) to put all our documents in sync. 

I’m sure between us locals we can sort it and help others on local networks!

Loob3

Thanks foe your help. 
-Highview parking
-A multi retail park with Home bargains/Homebase/Pets at Home/Costa etc
-the logo is DCBlegal ltd
-England

Coupon-mad

It’s only Highview. Read other Highview DCBL threads because the defence is already written a dozen times on them all.

Your hearing is not imminent but a court claim is, as per all the zillions of other Highview threads. 

patient_dream

To explain further, DCBL claims are shoddy, full of flaws and fail to explain in law the amounts they add on.  My brother is a barrister so no charge to me

He is on the same level as Nicholas Bowen QC
Mr Bowen won £1,500 from parking eye and the same principle will be used.  

All readers will understand that it would be wrong to say who, where and when about the case

By ignoring DCBL at this point, they don't know which case is mine and will be sitting in court with a barrister who specialises in damages claims

Answer for DCBL is the game of Russian roulette

D_P_Dance

... from DCBL for a letter of claim with a £155 fine 

It is not a fine and that sum almost certainly contains unlawful amounts.  Read this and complain to your MP.

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

Coupon-mad

Loob3 said:

Thanks foe your help. 
-Highview parking
-A multi retail park with Home bargains/Homebase/Pets at Home/Costa etc
-the logo is DCBlegal ltd
-England

You need to come back and do the important consultation (see below) and so does everything lurker and newbie on this thread!

The final Government Consultation into the level of parking charges, discounts, false ‘debt recovery add-ons’ (that no PPC actually pays)...

...and the Appeals Charter - that should IMHO result in full cancellations not enrich the PPCs by £20 or more because it would just encourage spurious PCNs that should never be issued...

... is now open!

See separate thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6286801/government-consultation-re-level-of-private-parking-charges-now-open

This forum’s regulars are encouraging email submissions with evidence and photos, letters attached to illustrate what happened to you and why you are answering the way you are.

Please tell your family and friends to encourage colleagues who have had these spurious PCNs and claims to email their evidence to the MHCLG as shown in the Consultation and not just do the tick boxes. 

The Government want evidence - victims must give it to them.  DON’T MISS IT.