DCBL legal CCJ saga (case won)

nosferatu1001

Ignore this for now. Notre the single post. 

Jenni_D

nosferatu1001 said:

Ignore this for now. Notre the single post. 

Posted in a recognisable style? (Woof)

Jsalomonuk

Hi I'd like to check something in relation to my initial set aside, I had originally confused DCBL legal and DCBL the debt collectors as one in the same and said that DCBL legal had been in communication with me but it was not them but the debt collectors.

Do I need to do a new WS stating this and also bring in the issue of the wrong claiment etc.
DCBL will claim they had right address in order to challenge my set aside, so will challenge my assertion they should have got the right address. 

nosferatu1001

Gah. Thats why precision is key
I would make that clear somehow. 
Point out that the principal had the correct address as their agents DCB debt collectors did. DCB: LEGAL filed a claim under instruciton from their client, who had the correct address because their agent did

Jsalomonuk

I don't know if dbcl the debt collectors were ever engaged in this case , all I know for sure Is I had updated all my records to right address, long before they claimed against me. And got the CCJ in default anyway.

It's clear if searched for I would be found as dbcl debt people DID find my right address.

I have also learned about privity of contract which is general rule at common law states that a contract creates rights and obligations only as between the parties to such contract, so captial car park control ltd had no legal basis to bring the claim in the first place. So this must be relevant to the set aside surely ?

Umkomaas

I have also learned about privity of contract which is general rule at common law states that a contract creates rights and obligations only as between the parties to such contract, so captial car park control ltd had no legal basis to bring the claim in the first place. So this must be relevant to the set aside surely ?

Nothing to do with the set aside. Your primacy of contract was not a reason why you didn't (couldn't) respond to the court claim. That's why the CCJ will have been incurred. It does however have everything to do with the legitimacy of the PCN and subsequent claim. 

Don't conflate the two.  Keep the two issues separate. You will have the opportunity to deal with the latter at a different stage and time. 

nosferatu1001

Yet you said theyu contacted you! So why wouldn't they be involved?!

It is relevant because it is 1) A good reason for set aside and 2) The claimant should never have filed the claim, as no legal debt assignemnt from the sole trader ever took place

nosferatu1001

Forget privity of contract. Once an alleged debt is created, THAT debt can be sold on (assigned) IF DONE LEGALLY. They didnt, so the claimant is wrong. 

Jsalomonuk

Thanks guys I understand they are separate issues ultimetly , to clarify DCBL debt collectors contacted me about a completely different parking charge which was canceled as soon as I wrote to them, after this a few weeks later dcbl legal filed claim at an old address.

I am just trying to clarify now I realised my mistake what I now need to inform the court of, so this set aside is Granted and it seems dcbl legal are happy to fight this at court .

Umkomaas

to clarify DCBL debt collectors contacted me about a completely different parking charge

Was that incurred with the same parking firm as the one relating to the CCJ?