DCBL legal CCJ saga (case won)

Jsalomonuk

Ok so i did Google those grounds but tbh I'm not sure I fully understand it but your last post made it clearer.

So something that is bothering me, the consent order says that capital car park control ltd issued a NTK, now if they were only encorporated as a company in August 2020 surely that cannot have issues me a NTK ? As stated I have difficulty formulating these arguments but I do believe as someone registered disabled and the fact there's something fishy going on means I have a defence in there

fueboy

Hi Jsalomonuk.
I am in a similar situation as yourself with Mr Szmidt, although I am only at the Letter of Claim stage. I obviously firstly wish you the best of luck in getting this case shut in your favour.

blackdog222 said on page 2:
"DCBL have been conned by this man , actually DCBL are to greedy and have done no research on there client 
how can a newly formed company (capital car park patrol LIMITED (24th aug 2020) ask DCBL to chase a claim buy a now defunct one man sole trader 

the claim and CCJ are wrong on so many levels , not only should it be removed , but DCBL and capital car park patrol LIMITED should be fined and have relevant licences removed "

When (i fully believe and hope you get the court case sorted) you are in the position, will you be making a formal complaint and also considering a counterclaim? Seeing as Mr Szmidt has illegally obtained our details by transferring them to his new company.
I am hoping to do the same with my issue with CCPC.

Good luck again, I will be keeping a keen eye on your thread

Jsalomonuk

Hi so yes I will claim for breech of data protection and claim for compensation, 

blackdog2220

Jsalomonuk said:

Hi so yes I will claim for breech of data protection and claim for compensation, 

you do know that the compoany involved (dcbl) were recently taken to court and fined £10k that they have done in your case is totally illigal and they should have licence revoked 

nosferatu1001

It wouldnt be a counterclaim, but a claim in its own rights

The consent order is not going to provide you with a defence. Its not a document that matters. 

Jsalomonuk

Hi Nosferatu

Thanks yes I've saught legal advice for the data breech, as a separate claim.

So I'm aware the consent order doest matter,. But it means that any NTK is either fraudulent or doesn't apply , which I think forms part of my defense ?

nosferatu1001

Defence, with a "C"
UK spell check needed
Why does it mean that? It could just mean they messed up on the Consent Order. Given the consent order is not an original document they'd just say "whoops we made a mistake"
Have you sent a SAR to the oroginal parking company, so you can see what documents they would have sent and when?

Jsalomonuk

Ok so my point is that any NTK would not have been sent by captial car park control ltd, but captial car park the sole trader there for no breech of t&c can by claimed by the new company ?

blackdog2220

this is not like the grtoup nexus cases where the company hads been bought out and new company are chasiing old cases 

in your case Mr Szmidt the sole trader ceased to exist in the eyes of HMRC the moment he became a director of limited company the limited company did (and could not) buy the sole traders portfolio of cases 
your data was ppassed from a BPA AOS member to a not BPA AOS member , ie ,  Mr Szmidt passed the data to the limited company , at this moment in time the sole trader existed , but the new company was not yet BPA AOS 
DCBL knew exactly what swas going on and knew it would be challenged in court , hence the wrong address and a default , hoping you would pay it and £100 to get file clean 
I suspect there are a lot more cases like this having gone thru or in the case of fuseboy , about to go thru 

nosferatu1001

...which doesnt help you get a set aside, as that is a defence to the underlying claim
Your aim for a set aside is to get teh judgment removed, and you do that with referecne to CPR 13.2 and CPR13.3
technically the merits of the underlying claim have little bearing on this. As I keep saying
Also The NTK is merely notice of an alleged debt.
The alleged debt is an asset (same as money you owe to someone is a liability) and as an asset can be sold on when a company is wound up. Sole traders are, however, weird, as there is no company entity, just the actual person who "trades as" the sole trader business name.
Blackdog - soletraders can of course pass on assets.