DCBLegal/CCPC County Court

FineFighter

Hi all, 
As this has progressed further (from LBC into a county court claim) I have updated this post to a summary of the situation. The original post can be found on the 2nd post.

I received a county court application for four previous invoices from private land from 2017.
I got a LBC from DBCLegal back in Feb of this year, got all the PCNs and photographic evidence helped by the PPC. In looking through my previous dealings with this company, I realised I had 2 or so invoices from the same area of North Greenwich - East Parkside. I appealed the 2nd of these PCNs to POPLA and it was decided in my favour (Jan 2017)
Similarly, I had 3 or so invoices from a different part of this area from the same PPC - Phoenix Avenue. Again, I contested the last of these to POPLA and the adjudicator found in my favour. (though looking back through my emails, this was actually with a different car which I was keeper to, so different registration but same name and address - in Jan 2018)

On this basis, I assumed that previous invoices wouldn't be enforceable on the basis they had already lost at POPLA from an almost identical timeframe

I therefore sent a strongly worded letter advising I intend to counterclaim their vexatious claim if they decide to pursue one against me on the basis it has already been successfully challenged at POPLA. I didn't hear back from them since the end of February so I thought/hoped this would be the end of it.

I've read through information here and on MSE forums and I'm aware of the next steps, ie AoS and Defence.
I'm grateful for any advice or reassurance that can be offered, especially with regards to next steps and making a counterclaim.

Here is some further information on when the invoices were given and when the NtK was sent - very out of time from PoFA point of view.

Invoice Location Date of invoice Date of NtK (1) Date of NtK (2)
981752 East Parkside 26.07.2016 12.12.2016 10.01.2017
981755 Phoenix Avenue 06.03.2017 06.06.2017 05.07.2017
981758 Phoenix Avenue 08.03.2017 06.06.2017 05.07.2017
981759 Phoenix Avenue 11.04.2017 21.06.2017 20.07.2017

Other invoices, which went to POPLA:
1210858013 – PCN No 3860 – 15/10/2016 – East Parkside - POPLA appeal dated 05.01.2017
1213286013 – PCN No 21514 – Issue Date 19/01/2018 – Phoenix Avenue (new car) - POPLA appeal dated 09.05.2018

FineFighter

Hi all, 
Hope this has been posted in the right place.
I received two separate letters from DCB legal today, titled "Letter of Claim". I've read around a bit and know I'll need to get an SAR, which I've emailed the company in this matter (Capital Car Park Control) to ask for the PCN, NTK and any evidence they wish to rely on. 
I'm also in the process of emailing the solicitors to inform them of this and that I'm seeking debt advice so to put this back 30 days. 

I just wanted to check if I'm on the right lines and if there's anything else I need to do?

(There's four PCNs here, one which they've sent alone and one with 3 others lumped together - I've uploaded copies of the first letter and the 2nd, the pages that differ (1st and last pages). The amounts seem to be for £70.00, which I'm guessing/hoping is the extra charges they lump on that aren't actually enforceable and hopefully allows me to claim "abuse of process"?

Many thanks for your help in advance!

Redx

Yes you have done the 2 correct steps

The added charges are not abuse of process unless a judge agrees , they are double recovery charges , so the argument is the latter

None of that affects the PCN core terms , abuse of process and double recovery are not a defence against any PCN !!

Do not get blindsided by abuse of process arguments , even if a judge chucks them out , they have to consider the actual invoices !!

FineFighter

I think I was a bit naive to ignore these PCNs. I thought I was in the right and they'd never get enforced because signage wasn't clear and I'd parked away from the sign, and to make matters worse - they're BPA and I could've appealed to POPLA and probably had them overturned. 

All very frustrating! 

After I've heard back from them with PCNs, NTKs etc, would it be OK if I posted those here? Or are they not really relevant at this stage? 

blackdog2220

Terry SZMIDT trading as capitol car park patrol is no longer a legal "body"  "it" ceased to exist when the company parted ways with HM goverment (sole trader = self employed ) and mr Terry SZMIDT formed a new company called capitol car park patrol ltd on the 24th august 2020, he is sole director of that company (company number 12832321) 
how you got info from a sat , from one company , that was held by a defunt company is amazing and I would be asking how and why
ask dcbl nicely !!!!!! they are playing at 

Redx

When the data comes back , study it for use in your defence and evidence if a court claim arises , which should have been done at the beginning as you say. It was easier to win at Popla compared to Court !!

FineFighter

blackdog2220 said:

Terry SZMIDT trading as capitol car park patrol is no longer a legal "body"  "it" ceased to exist when the company parted ways with HM goverment (sole trader = self employed ) and mr Terry SZMIDT formed a new company called capitol car park patrol ltd on the 24th august 2020, he is sole director of that company (company number 12832321) 
how you got info from a sat , from one company , that was held by a defunt company is amazing and I would be asking how and why
ask dcbl nicely !!!!!! they are playing at 

yeah its all a bit odd. I do wonder how I can owe money to a company that doesn't exist, and I suspect that the SAR will show "debt" to a different entity - I'm not sure whether this debt can be passed on in this way, but I'm certainly not planning to rely that it can't be

beamerguy

The DCBL letter states SZMIDT trading as Capital Car Park Control ..... not limited

This indicates a sole trader ....... who has given him licence to obtain info from the DVLA ?

blackdog2220

the SAR should show nothing , because you are writing to Mr terrytowel T/A capitol car park patrol , and they do not exist anymore 
PS sole trader is not a "company" its a one man band 

beamerguy

blackdog2220 said:

the SAR should show nothing , because you are writing to Mr terrytowel T/A capitol car park patrol , and they do not exist anymore 
PS sole trader is not a "company" its a one man band 

Yes I know it is a one man band with form, who gives the authority to access the DVLA

blackdog2220

he HAD authority , but is no longer ABA aos or listed with HM gov as sole trader (self employed) he gave that up when he paid £1 to become a director of Ltd company , i wonder , ask him for DVLA reply for your data , definate breach of kodoe then