DCBL legal CCJ saga (case won)

Jsalomonuk

So it looks like DCBL legal are up to something, they called and said client is happy to pay the £255 if I pay the underlying claim, 
I said no, they said no problem, they would go to court as they a search and got my old address, and the error of fact was wrong naming and they, while no debt had been assigned, they are seeking to adjust that with the court and it won't be a problem for them. I wonder what they are up too

nosferatu1001

Id have said you would obeject to anny order to vary the claimant, as it is such a fundamental mistake the claim should not stand. 

Jsalomonuk

I will, don't they have to apply to the court and let me know ? or can they do this without me involved ?

nosferatu1001

You need to get the set aside first. Until you get the judgemnt set aside there is no live claim. 

Jsalomonuk

They are saying that they change of name relevant to the set aside though .

I might be getting confused, but they are happy to proceed to court over the set aside, and not worried about the wrong claiment issue 

nosferatu1001

Well it is relevant in that it is part of your defence to the underlying claim. 
You know that THAT parttr of set aside comes under CPR13.3

Coupon-mad

They are bluffing and scaring you.  Nothing has changed.

parkinghelpme

Jsalomonuk said:

So it looks like DCBL legal are up to something, they called and said client is happy to pay the £255 if I pay the underlying claim, 
I said no, they said no problem, they would go to court as they a search and got my old address, and the error of fact was wrong naming and they, while no debt had been assigned, they are seeking to adjust that with the court and it won't be a problem for them. I wonder what they are up too

I do not think in all the letters you have sent to DCB Legal you have ever used the wording assigned.
You have only asked for setaside based on the wrong address , so why do they bring assigned into play 
To recap , your setaside aplication that they had sight of 

my CCJ set aside was as below 

I  seek to set aside the County Court Judgement dated [insert date] because:

 

·         The Claimant, or their legal representatives, should have known that I had moved, and did not try to find my current address or consider another way of sending the claim to me.

·         I have proof that The Claimant, or their legal representatives, knew of my new address before the claim was issued.

·         The Claimant, or their legal representatives, have added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. Despite this the Claimant has claimed for £192.54. The Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process and an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded

 

section 10 of form N244

 

This case refers to a parking fine imposed by Capital Car Parks Ltd which I apparently incurred in London in February 2019. I was not made aware of the fine at the time, and only became aware of it when I was alerted by a warning from a credit reference site on 15 December 2020 that I had an outstanding county court judgement against me, following action taken by DCBL Legal on behalf of Capital Car Parks. I have lived at a number of different addresses since February 2019, and I can only presume that notification of the fine has been sent to incorrect addresses.

 

DCBL Legal contacted me at my correct address on 30 October 2020 on another matter but dropped action on 3 December 2020 (the exchange of correspondence is attached). DCBL Legal were therefore at fault in applying for a county court judgement on 6 November 2020  on the grounds that the February 2019 fine had been unpaid when they knew my correct address but had been pursuing me at an incorrect address. I was thus precluded from dealing with the matter before it went to court, and from defending myself in court.

At no point have you stated that the paperwork was from CCPC ltd and should have been from the sole trader , so why are DCBL going on about not assigned ?

The BPA are stating no assignment between 2 parties and refusing to act , DCBL are mentioning assignment , when the subject has never been mentioned to them by you 

the BPA DCBL and CCPC ltd are reading this case and others both here , at pepipoo and other sites and the BPA are teaching the other two on there next actions 

the DVLA need to be informed that at the time of the incident T smitz applied for details using capitol car park control and a ICO number of Z1908468 , and from september 2020 onwards all requests have been by  capitol car park control LIMITED with a ICO number of ZA788821 , this is the entity that instigated court charges in 2020 for a case going back to 2017 

Coupon-mad

T smitz
capitol 

Typos as above, both spelt wrong and it is important to get these right.

Jsalomonuk

parkinghelpme said:

Jsalomonuk said:

So it looks like DCBL legal are up to something, they called and said client is happy to pay the £255 if I pay the underlying claim, 
I said no, they said no problem, they would go to court as they a search and got my old address, and the error of fact was wrong naming and they, while no debt had been assigned, they are seeking to adjust that with the court and it won't be a problem for them. I wonder what they are up too

I do not think in all the letters you have sent to DCB Legal you have ever used the wording assigned.
You have only asked for setaside based on the wrong address , so why do they bring assigned into play 
To recap , your setaside aplication that they had sight of 

my CCJ set aside was as below 

I  seek to set aside the County Court Judgement dated [insert date] because:

 

·         The Claimant, or their legal representatives, should have known that I had moved, and did not try to find my current address or consider another way of sending the claim to me.

·         I have proof that The Claimant, or their legal representatives, knew of my new address before the claim was issued.

·         The Claimant, or their legal representatives, have added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. Despite this the Claimant has claimed for £192.54. The Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process and an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded

 

section 10 of form N244

 

This case refers to a parking fine imposed by Capital Car Parks Ltd which I apparently incurred in London in February 2019. I was not made aware of the fine at the time, and only became aware of it when I was alerted by a warning from a credit reference site on 15 December 2020 that I had an outstanding county court judgement against me, following action taken by DCBL Legal on behalf of Capital Car Parks. I have lived at a number of different addresses since February 2019, and I can only presume that notification of the fine has been sent to incorrect addresses.

 

DCBL Legal contacted me at my correct address on 30 October 2020 on another matter but dropped action on 3 December 2020 (the exchange of correspondence is attached). DCBL Legal were therefore at fault in applying for a county court judgement on 6 November 2020  on the grounds that the February 2019 fine had been unpaid when they knew my correct address but had been pursuing me at an incorrect address. I was thus precluded from dealing with the matter before it went to court, and from defending myself in court.

At no point have you stated that the paperwork was from CCPC ltd and should have been from the sole trader , so why are DCBL going on about not assigned ?

The BPA are stating no assignment between 2 parties and refusing to act , DCBL are mentioning assignment , when the subject has never been mentioned to them by you 

the BPA DCBL and CCPC ltd are reading this case and others both here , at pepipoo and other sites and the BPA are teaching the other two on there next actions 

the DVLA need to be informed that at the time of the incident T smitz applied for details using capitol car park control and a ICO number of Z1908468 , and from september 2020 onwards all requests have been by  capitol car park control LIMITED with a ICO number of ZA788821 , this is the entity that instigated court charges in 2020 for a case going back to 2017 

Why do I need to inform the DVLA ? 
what affect will this have on my set aside ?