DCBL legal CCJ saga (case won)

nosferatu1001

I doubt the judge will opine on it too much
As I said, assets - and debts, alleged or otherwise are categorically assets - can be transferred in, but this should be correctly accounted for. 

Johnersh

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.
Well yes, of course it can. However, that doesn't bypass the formalities required. That means that:
1. There must be an assignment of the debt (that requires a document to be executed, but would likely include the benefits of all the debts/tickets in bulk). 
2. As a debtor you should have been served with notice of the assignment. That's needed on an individual basis. 

In short, it is my view that they need to prove the transfer took place (1) and provide evidence that notice was sent (2). Otherwise, why on earth would you pay a company you never had a parking contract with? 

nosferatu1001

^this

and of course, it won't have happened. It won't have been accounted for properly, either. That's tax fraud. 

Johnersh

PS the first letter from dcbl is, to my mind, at least, telling.
(a) They do not deny that they had the correct address for the o/p. They ignore the point;
(b) unusually their draft consent order contains an express provision that the documents were correctly served. That wouldn't be necessary - unless of course they had their doubts. 
(C) whilst they say they contacted the DVLA for an address they also confirm that at no point did they receive a response from you. That must create a doubt as to whether the address they had for you was good.

Apply the court rules - CPR 6.9(3) The duty is on them to investigate: 

Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to in entries 1, 2 or 3 in the table in paragraph (2) is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’).

They don't say that they did and, obviously even a search of dcbls own systems would have provided a correct address. It needs to be set aside. 

#wrongclaimant
#notserved
#noevidencedebtassigned

blackdog2220

seems a sole trader can come and go as he wishes ,exist one day , not exist the day after , only stipulation is that he declares as self employed AND PAYS TAXES 
the guy is turning into a camillion , duel ICO numbers , the name on bpa list is neither TA or Ltd ,his signage early on never stated "terry toewell T/A " or on later signs no LTD in address  issuing claims under TA and a day later as LTD 

whilst all the time the BPA shield him 

Johnersh

That's small fry. The court is unlikely to be bothered by the trade association stuff. The o/p just needs to keep the points simple. 

Even if the court ain't with him on the "correct claimant" point, the "service" point is significant. Failure to check for the correct address where there is cause to doubt it, is no mere technicality. 

nosferatu1001

As above, and is what I keep trying to drag the thread back to - which is what will help with the set aside
Blackdog - the comments are good, but not useful to the OP right now. Can they make sure theyre happy with set aside first, THEN we can tal kabout the rest?

Jsalomonuk

Hi everyone , i really appreciate the input so far, so sticking solely to the set aside am i correct in the summary below of my arguments ? i know my spelling and grammar is awful I'm just putting my understanding down of what I'm read

 CPR 6.9(3) The duty is on claimant to investigate: 

Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to in entries 1, 2 or 3 in the table in paragraph (2) is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’).

The Claimant had clearly not done so as evidenced by communication by its sister company DCBL who were communicating to the claimant before action was brought, who are self-described specialists at debtor tracing.

13.3

(1) In any other case, the court may set aside or vary a judgment entered under Part 12 if –

 

(a)    the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim; or

 

Defendant is considered disabled under the lawful definition, and the Equality Act does not require the driver to display any sort of badge or permit. Anyone who fits the lawful definition of disability is entitled to make use of the ‘reasonable adjustments’. The signage is adding arbitrary rules to the lawful right of someone to use a ‘reasonable adjustment’, and this is should be considered a breach of the Equality Act

EQUALITY ACT 2010
142 Unenforceable terms
(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable against a person in so far as it constitutes, promotes or provides for treatment of that or another person that is of a description prohibited by this Act.

144(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable by a person in whose favour it would operate in so far as it purports to exclude or limit a provision of or made under this Act.

29 Provision of services
(1) A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(2) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)—
(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
(b)by terminating the provision of the service to B;
©by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(3) A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass—
(a)a person requiring the service, or
(b)a person to whom the service-provider provides the service.

(4) A service-provider must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(5) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, victimise a person (B)—
(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;

 

 

 

(b) it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why –

 

The entity that has brought the claim against the defendant (the *company*) is NOT the same legal entity that the defendant allegedly had a contract with when parked.

There must be an assignment of the alleged debt

The defendant has not been served with notice of the assignment.

The claimant has not shown proof the transfer took place or provided evidence that notice was sent.

 

blackdog2220

Johnersh said:

PS the first letter from dcbl is, to my mind, at least, telling.
(a) They do not deny that they had the correct address for the o/p. They ignore the point;
(b) unusually their draft consent order contains an express provision that the documents were correctly served. That wouldn't be necessary - unless of course they had their doubts. 
(C) whilst they say they contacted the DVLA for an address they also confirm that at no point did they receive a response from you. That must create a doubt as to whether the address they had for you was good.

Apply the court rules - CPR 6.9(3) The duty is on them to investigate: 

Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to in entries 1, 2 or 3 in the table in paragraph (2) is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’).

They don't say that they did and, obviously even a search of dcbls own systems would have provided a correct address. It needs to be set aside. 

#wrongclaimant
#notserved
#noevidencedebtassigned

1 active person with significant control at DCB legal = Gary robinson
1 active person with significant control at DIRECT COLLECTION BAILIFFS LTD = gary Robinson 
one half dont know what other half are doing 

Jsalomonuk

I guess my point is that its clear that had they looked my correct address was available, I was registered on the electoral role at my address months before the claim and this was incorrectly served