DCBL legal CCJ saga (case won)

nosferatu1001

CPR13.2 is the part about not serving
CPR13.3 is any other good reason, ie you have a reasonable defence
They HAD your address, they hadnt had any contact from you ever, etc. Being on the electoral roll just means IF they had looked you would have been there to be found. 

Jsalomonuk

So I've now been assigned an online court date for set aside may, which should give me enough time to formulate everything ready.

Is it worth trying to get the whole claim discarded at this stage by the judge ?

blackdog2220

I thought the next stage was in 2  parts 
1: to get the CCJ setaside and to return you to a position shortly before court papers (and default) took place 
2: allow terry tower aided by DCBL to serve new papers at which point you can admit the charges and pay up , or it can go before a judge who will decide 

I suspect terry towel and DCBL would be foolish to represernt there case under the heading Capitol carpark control LTD , and then for DCBL to state that Capitol carpark control LTD applied to the DVLA for keepers details some years before the company was legally registerd 
we all know that a sole trader applied for your details , at no point have you been advised that your data has been assigned to the Ltd company , and basicly the info presented to court is fraudulant 
hopefully you can "hint at this" to the judge and say you will defend any claim , but should they back down you would like your costs (£255 + time) 
hopefully the BPA , and DVLA will have admitted mistakes by the time of your case and repremanded terry towel and DCBL 

blackdog2220

you should also be contacting the DVLA , you have details of who contacted them for your details , and the ICO number they used , ask why your details were assigned from one part to another party that did not exist at time of incident , and are DVLa aware of this , as you were not informed 

Jsalomonuk

I'm going to fight it as they sent me the signs and they are not compatible with the equalities act and so the contract can't be enforced anyway , I was hoping to just let the judge know this at set aside time to save more court time, 

I do wonder as I'm too later to counter claim for breech of the equalies act against capital car park control however capitals car park control ltd as far as I can see have just started a case against me within the time I can counter claim,  

blackdog2220

no you get the setaside , then if they wish to start a new claim , or resubmit old one , at that point you kick off big time , once the setasIde has taken place , its as if court action never took place , so how can you claim  equalities act for something that has never happened as far as law is concirned 
I would be advising the BPA of what they have done , and change of name and assignment of claim , false witness statements etc etc 


your counter claim should they restart a claim  would be against terry towel , trading both as sole trader (ico ref no ,,,,,,,) and capitals car park control ltd sole director , mr terry towel with ico ref ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
a sole trader cannot just hide , or disapear or say i,m now working for j bloggs , a sole trader is responsable for his own actions untill he snuffs it , or 6 yrs have passed 

nosferatu1001

You can ask doe the claim to be dismissed entirely at that point, but it's highly unusual. 

Coupon-mad

There is no such act as the Equalities Act. 

I am being deliberately pedantic about that because if you want to argue this in court in front of a Judge, you need to know which Act, and what section within it, means the terms are unenforceable.  There is nothing in the (right) Act about signage.

Jsalomonuk

Hi coupon mad,

My argument is that 

Defendant is considered disabled under the lawful definition, and the Equalitiy 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  ‘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.

If I'm not mistaken Thier Argument Is their signage forms the basis of the contract I've supposedly breeched. If their signs add rules that are contrary to the equalies act the contract is unenforceable. If they say i MUST have blue badge, they are already in breech of the equalities act.


The court also should take my disability into account when dealing with me and frankly they cannot expect me as a lay person with my disability to be able to argue my case in the same manner and accuracy as someone who doesn't have the issues i do. It takes a huge effort for me to communicate so . I've mentioned it several times and I don't think it had really sunk into anyone who's giving me advice just how difficult this stuff is for me, my spelling and grammar leves is far far far far below average. So excuse a few typos

I appreciate being helped, 

D_P_Dance

I agree with you first paragraph, but have not see many DD counter claims on here.  I suspect that, if there were a whiff of a DDCC the PPC would settle out of court.

I came close to suing my council for a residents' parking PCN once but the adjudicator found in my favour,