DCBL legal CCJ saga (case won)

Jsalomonuk

Johnersh said:

Unless I've missed something the o/p has a decent basis for set aside.  The subsequent defence appears to be that s/he should not have had to display a disability badge. 

Isn't that a struggle? I don't see that requiring a disabled person to display a disabled badge to park in a wider access bay etc is any more than a legitimate means of preserving the availability of those spaces for those that require them. The reasonable adjustment is to provide those spaces. 

If a private scheme mirrors that system (and all countries in the UK and EU have the same scheme) you're unlikely to convince anyone that it's unfair. 

Hi to clarify my understanding the blue badge system ONLY applies to local authorities.

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’. What they are in effect doing is adding arbitrary rules to the lawful right of someone to use a ‘reasonable adjustment’, and this could be considered a breach of the Equality Act

My understanding is that adding of rules like this which preclude me from accessing the service means it's not compatible with the act. And thus any contract based on this is unenforceable.

There was a judgement made against Excel parking back in 2013 to this affect

I am happy to come back to my defence after the set aside for which I will be confirming some details around shortly.

D_P_Dance

A Blue Badge covers a narrower range of eligible disabilities than those the EA requires companies to make adjustments for.

Indeed, far narrower

Jsalomonuk

As an update, I have received a letter without prejudice.

a previous letter send to me contains an error of fact and notwithstanding the claimant is now prepared to agree to set aside a judgment without payment.

I'm guessing this is because they realise they may lose and have to pay costs? and this way they don't pay costs ?

blackdog2220

Jsalomonuk said:

As an update, I have received a letter without prejudice.

a previous letter send to me contains an error of fact and notwithstanding the claimant is now prepared to agree to set aside a judgment without payment.

I'm guessing this is because they realise they may lose and have to pay costs? and this way they don't pay costs ?

so , mr terry towel has been cought out , DCBL have been proved to be lieing (who asked for DVLA info) , and now he just want to pay the £100 and walk away 

words cannot explain what ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I'm guessing this is because they realise they may lose and have to pay costs? and this way they don't pay costs ?

yours is a set aside , not a retrial , there are no "costs" as such apart from you wanting your £255 back 
it would be at a later point should they retry to bring the case , that costs would be involved , however
a: fighting for your £255 when they drop case
b: what case , there is no case , LTD NEVER OWNED THE DEBT 

I do hope you have done some emailing , BPA , DVLA SRA , because you take the "queens £100" , and they walk , walk off to screw somebody else over 

have you paid £255 vto the court yet or not ?

Jsalomonuk

Yes I paid my £225 and I want that back ,  no I've not emailed all those people, my energy is solely on getting rid of this CCJ, 

I struggle with this stuff so one mission at a time.

blackdog2220

ok , so why should you simply let them pay the £100 , and have a situation where a: you are £255 out of pocket and b: the setaside with consent will never see a judge , they are hiding the things they have done 
a: you are in situation a: as above or
b: you rock to court explain what the Flock , suggest that they will NOT bring new charges , tell judge legal actions are to follow , and you want your £255 back 

OR you send DCBL (who dont like it up emm) a WITHOUT PRREDGIDIST ,letter (cannot be shown in court)  you want 
1: them to pay £100
2: them to re emberrse you £255
3: you want £500 for the agro / grief and amusement of reading there paperwork and all the lies it contains 
at which point decide , is £500 nice or will bpa / sra do anything  , answer = NO , so screw dcbl and terry towel 

nosferatu1001

POint out that you have already spent £255 on the set aside, so after their attempt to mislead a consumer has been admitted, you are not prepared to accept anything less than this amount back, the case discontinued and their consent to a set aside. This has real value to them as it will reduce their costs bill when you prevail

Coupon-mad

As above!  It's ''pay me £255 and you also pay a fee to set the CCJ aside and comply with all court/Defendant requests to facilitate that, or the hearing proceeds and you incur my attendance and other costs too.''

blackdog2220

once this is over I am sure CM or others will compose some nice emails on your behalf to the BPA , SRA and DVLA 

terry towel in conjuction with "we dont like it up us" need to be brought down a peg or 3 

failing that maybe this solisitor can help , he loves DCBL https://iaingould.co.uk/2020/09/25/trespass-by-enforcement-agents-making-the-bailiffs-pay-up/

Jsalomonuk

Hi guys
so how does this seem as a response ? 

"Without prejudice

 I am writing in response to your recent letter dated 10/02/21 discussing the fact that DCBL presented me with a letter that contained an 'error of fact' and notwithstanding the client is now prepared to agree set aside judgment without payment.

This case as it stands is that due to the conduct of DCBL and its client I am down £255 for the initial set aside. My credit rating has suffered costing more money.

Unless I am reimbursed the £255 and set aside granted then this will pass before the courts for a judge to see and if the hearing proceeds and you incur my attendance and other costs too"