DCBL legal CCJ saga (case won)

blackdog2220

nosferatu1001 said:

...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. 

correct , but Mr Smitxz as a sole trader could not LEGALLY exist as a buisness the moment that CCPC Ltd was formed at companies house , so Mr Smitxz (as a BPA member and after reading the KADOE manual) passed the KODOE data to a non AOS company 
or did Mr smittz with his new company find a filing drawer full of uppaid tickedts by the bloke who used to rent the office 

I agree wityh you , a simple pay £255 set aside , based on many things inc the blatently obvious address "error" 

once this has been done , then go after DCBL and Mr terry towel at your own speed and grace , remember a sole trader IS responsable for his own actions and debts , inlike ltd company that can hide and close down 

beamerguy

blackdog2220 said:

nosferatu1001 said:

...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. 

correct , but Mr Smitxz as a sole trader could not LEGALLY exist as a buisness the moment that CCPC Ltd was formed at companies house , so Mr Smitxz (as a BPA member and after reading the KADOE manual) passed the KODOE data to a non AOS company 
or did Mr smittz with his new company find a filing drawer full of uppaid tickedts by the bloke who used to rent the office 

I agree wityh you , a simple pay £255 set aside , based on many things inc the blatently obvious address "error" 

once this has been done , then go after DCBL and Mr terry towel at your own speed and grace , remember a sole trader IS responsable for his own actions and debts , inlike ltd company that can hide and close down 

Interesting what you say ..... a new thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6238374/dcb-legal-letter-before-claim#latest

TERRY SZMIDT  .. T/A CAPITAL CAR PARK CONTROL

Coupon-mad

There should be grounds to ask the Judge to strike out the whole claim at the set aside if you can send a WS showing the evidence about these companies.

blackdog2220

thec fact that they wrote to correct address 2 weeks before shows they were doing this maliciously , the claim , had it have been sent to correct address would have been kicked out due to company name on claim 

I wonder just how many of the terrytowel T/A portfolio have been passed to DCBL 

Jsalomonuk

Hi coupon mad,
By WS do you mean witness statement ?

To be honest, I don't even know where to start , I've kept up with this thread with great difficulty as it is,
I understand what the Original parking claiment may have done wrong, but not dcbl ? Are they not just acting on thier clients instructions?

blackdog2220

Jsalomonuk said:

Hi coupon mad,
By WS do you mean witness statement ?

To be honest, I don't even know where to start , I've kept up with this thread with great difficulty as it is,
I understand what the Original parking claiment may have done wrong, but not dcbl ? Are they not just acting on thier clients instructions?

DCBL knew full ^^&ddy well your correct address , they also know the companies status , they did it behind your back hoping you would role over and pay then + £ for a set a side , its a dirty trick called credit clamping (google it) 

the "cudly" bohill on TV is actually a very nasty decieving person , him and his company are in this to make as much as possible before new legislation comes in 

Johnersh

@Jsalomonuk there are 2 points to summarise

1. The entity that has sued you (the *company*) is NOT the same legal entity that you allegedly had a contract with when you parked. A sole trader is a *person*

2. The claimant company was not entitled to ask for a court judgment as the documents were not sent to your address.  They cannot say they used a last known address since DCBL who facilitated the claim had *actual knowledge* of the correct address to use, which you can prove by producing the letters you received. 

In addition its really easy to search for people via credit checks, the electoral roll etc.  They likely did none of that and no response to their letters should have at least have caused them to consider the possibility they had an old or incorrect address, so as to make those checks. 

blackdog2220

Johnersh said:

@Jsalomonuk there are 2 points to summarise

1. The entity that has sued you (the *company*) is NOT the same legal entity that you allegedly had a contract with when you parked. A sole trader is a *person*

2. The claimant company was not entitled to ask for a court judgment as the documents were not sent to your address.  They cannot say they used a last known address since DCBL who facilitated the claim had *actual knowledge* of the correct address to use, which you can prove by producing the letters you received. 

In addition its really easy to search for people via credit checks, the electoral roll etc.  They likely did none of that and no response to their letters should have at least have caused them to consider the possibility they had an old or incorrect address, so as to make those checks. 

actually they knew by using older address they could sneak thro this fabricated charge , had it have been sent to correct address it would have been challenged and kicked out of court 
page one , ( i cant link yet) first page of there letter "client= capitol car park patrol LIMITED "  further down the page "our client obtained details from the DVLA , No they %$^&*well did not , 

they are either extreamly thick or they are good at poker 

nosferatu1001

Jsalomonuk said:

Hi coupon mad,
By WS do you mean witness statement ?

To be honest, I don't even know where to start , I've kept up with this thread with great difficulty as it is,
I understand what the Original parking claiment may have done wrong, but not dcbl ? Are they not just acting on thier clients instructions?

OP - DCBL are a legal firm and as such, they actually have a duty to the Court, and that duty is higher than their duty to their client. They cant mislead the court. 
WS does mean Witness Statement, and on this forum ALWAYS means Witness Statement
Nothign stops you from filing a supplementary witness statement now, if you wish to make the above points more clear. Mostly point 1 of Jonnersh (who is legally qualified) post. 

Jsalomonuk

Thanks for this information guys.
From a bit of net scouring it would appear a sole trader can transfer assests across to any new ltd company it forms so not sure where that falls into it.

But I will mention what's come up to the judge and see where they fall on it