DCBLegal/CCPC County Court

1505grandad

C-m commented  - "Nice counterclaim example for others who also have grounds for it"

on this thread (Nosy):-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6040768/pcn-driver-not-registered-keeper-dcbl/p10

Hope this helps.

Coupon-mad

Hang on that's a counterclaim, this wasn't after an actual counterclaim, just looking for the reply to a LBC.

Try Dear Sirs harassment £900 (you obviously need the words 'Dear Sirs' in your search, to find a letter addressed to a solicitor and to exclude actual counterclaims).  If you are looking for a letter you search for the salutation of a letter - or maybe 'yours faithfully' as an alternative, to narrow the results. 

I am still not doing the search, I am knackered, working full time again now. And us doing the search helps no-one.

1505grandad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6227264/dcb-legal-on-b-of-highview-parking-letter-of-claim-not-keeper-nor-driver-at-time-of-issue-of-pcn/p2

Any good?

Coupon-mad

Yes - easy to find - but why are we doing searches for new posters, it means they don't use the forum properly and can't use it later to research.

D_P_Dance

- but why are we doing searches for new posters,

Why indeed.  However, imo some of the regulars seem happy to do so.   Almost everything about anything can be looked up on google.  

FineFighter

My apologies to the regulars, I’m not well versed in using this forum and have struggled a bit with finding counterclaim examples. I am also using the site mainly on iPad and mobile phone, which is probably not helping. 

I’ve found this counterclaim threat from another thread and will modify with the points Coupon-mad has made and will post something later today for any feedback you lovely lot are willing to offer:
 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6227264/dcb-legal-on-b-of-highview-parking-letter-of-claim-not-keeper-nor-driver-at-time-of-issue-of-pcn/p3 

many thanks for the eternal patience of the regulars, and all the help and advice you’ve given here and in other threads. I realise many of you do this in addition to having a full time job and a life and without charging anything, which does restore one’s faith in humanity somewhat.

FineFighter

Hi Guys,
Apologies, has been tricky to find time to get this done and has felt like a larger than realised undertaking! I've posted my first draft below and would be grateful for any feedback or comments. I know the language and grammar probably need a tidying up but wanted to get this done so it may be a bit rough around the edges:

Dear Sirs,  

Response to Letter of Claim ref xxxxxx and notice of my counterclaim

Terry Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control v  xxxxx xxxxxx

I refer to DCBLegal's letter dated 28/01/21 under the above reference. I dispute that there is any debt owed to Terry Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control. 

Having examined the evidence that your client is relying on to bring this case to court, I make the following assertions to support the above claim:

In the case of each notice issued, the timescale for the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was well outside the 56 days stipulated in law by the Protection of Freedom Act (2012).Thus this liability cannot be transferred to the keeper. The DVLA information which was requested by your client having failed the test of PoFA set out in law should not have been retained by your client and he has no lawful reason to continue to possess my data.

Further, I note that the notices were issued for two areas – East Parkside and Phoenix Avenue. Subsequent notices have been issued after these dates, which were challenged via the independent Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) and were cancelled on the grounds of inadequate signage. These POPLA appeals and the adjudicator’s decisions can be requested through them with the following reference numbers: 1210858013 and 1213286013.

 

Given the above points, and given the legality of these notices have already been tested independently at the appeals service approved by the British Parking Association, I would argue that bringing this case is fruitless at best and vexatious at worst, which is bound to fail and a waste of both my time, and the court’s. If your client decides to proceed with this claim given the above points, then I will issue a counterclaim for at least £900 plus costs and interest for data abuse, harassment and distress for this claim. Distress is now included under Article 82 of the GDPR and the 2018 DPA.

I require Terry Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control and DCBLegal to cease and desist from sending me alarmist and unwarranted communications and note that the alleged debt is disputed and entirely denied. Erase my data immediately after replying to confirm that the PCN has been cancelled within the next 7 days.

Harassment and notice of proposed £900 counter claim

Due to the nature and wording of the DCBLegal letter, the communication constitutes unwarranted harassment.  I dispute the quantum and object to the intimidatory, misleading nature of the entire operation.  

 

Your clients have no cause of action, and must stop.  Kindly inform your clients that if a claim is filed, I will counterclaim and I will seek damages for distress and/or breach of statutory duty in the sum of £900, which is at the lower end of established guidance regarding harassment claims, pursuant to the following: 

 

a) damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ breach of statutory duty and misleading actions within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as amended by the Consumer Protection Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (“the Regulations”);  

b) damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ breach of statutory duty arising from breaches of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA');

c) damages for distress caused by breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation ('the GDPR');

d) damages for distress caused by harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ('the PFHA') ref section 3.

 

Personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully.  Your clients stand in breach of Article 5 (1) of the GDPR (the requirement for lawfulness, fairness and transparency) and the doctrines of open dealing and good faith in the CRA.  There was no 'relevant obligation' that related to myself.   I have never been to the car park stated in the letter and was neither the keeper nor the driver. Accordingly, the processing of my DVLA data was not “necessary for the performance of, or commencing, a contract”. Your clients had no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.  Your client had, and still has, no prospect of furthering their purpose and no legitimate cause to continue processing my data. 

In accordance with Principles 1, 2 and 5 of the Data Protection Principles they were not permitted to either obtain, process or keep it.  The quantum of the alleged debt is in breach of Schedule 2 of the CRA and the misleading wording of demands from DCBLegal pays no regard to the PAP or the Regulations cited above in (a).  It is unfair business practice for a parking firm to state that they are an AOS member, yet fail to comply with the applicable Code of Practice, which the Supreme Court took to be effectively 'regulatory'.  The conduct of your client and their agents (including your firm) has amounted to an unfair commercial practice which is prohibited under regulation 3 of the CPTURs and a misleading action within the meaning of regulations 5 and 6, for which redress is available under regulation 27(J)(b).

 

In all the premises, the conduct of your clients and their agents amounts to harassment under section 1 of the PFHA.  It is pertinent to adduce the authorities of:

 

(i) Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd  [2009] EWCA Civ 46

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html 

 

where Sedley LJ held: 

[52] ''...For my part I would draw attention to the fact [...] that harassment is a crime as well as a tort. Contrary to what was more than once suggested, this does not modify in any way the constituents of the wrong. 

[53] Parliament's intention in passing the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was to criminalise the kind of serious and persistent unwarranted threat which is alleged here, giving a right of civil action as a fallback. In this situation it ought not to be left to hardy individuals to put their savings and homes at risk by suing. The primary responsibility should rest upon local public authorities which possess the means and the statutory powers to bring alleged harassers, however impersonal and powerful, before the local justices.''

 

and 

(ii) Harrison v Link Financial Ltd [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html 

 

where HHJ Chambers QC concluded at [83]:

''Cumulatively and damningly is what I find to be the way that MBNA and the Defendant went about recovering their debt. [...] It seems to me that such conduct has no proper function in the recovery of consumer debt. Whatever the strength of the suggestion that the courts should only be a last resort, I can see no legitimate comparison between a series of measured warnings which, after full opportunity for response, lead to legal proceedings and what took place. {...there} ...can be no excuse for conduct of which it must be supposed the sole purpose must have been to make the Claimant's life so difficult that he would come to heel. I cannot think that in a society that is otherwise so sensitive of a consumer's position this is conduct that should countenanced.''

(iii) Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA 311 which confirms that pecuniary loss is not necessary for compensation to be payable and that pure distress is enough.

 

By reason of the matters aforesaid I have been obliged to deal with unjustified and aggressive correspondence from you. As a Litigant in Person I have suffered substantial damage and distress, causing sleepless nights, headaches and extreme worry.  I consider myself a robust person but I am only human and will attest to the severe effect on my peace of mind, on oath if required by the Judge.  Your clients are the cause of enormous anxiety for me and my family, especially given the current pandemic situation where people are more vulnerable. 

 

Your clients must take stock of their position and cease immediately and/or deal properly with the dispute.  I expect an apology at the very least.  If your clients ignore this fair warning, I will file a £900 counterclaim, as well as a robust defence and will also pursue my entire costs pursuant to Part 27.14(2)(g) of the Civil Procedure Rules due to their wholly unreasonable conduct.

 

Yours faithfully,  

 

nosferatu1001

Why have you included the "Ltd" on the end?
The TRADING AS identity does not have LIMITED on the end. The LIMITED COMPANY does....
Youre confusing the two. 
28 days - where have you gotten this deadline from? POFA does not give such a deadline. IF a PCN is placed on the vehicle, they have to ensure a NtK is received no earlier than day 29 and no later than day 56. If no windscreen ticket, it must be recieved within 14 days. This is unarguable if you read POFA. 

FineFighter

FineFighter said:

Fine	Location	Date of fine	Date of NtK (1)	Date of NtK (2)
F1	East Parkside	26.07.2016	12.12.2016	10.01.2017
F2	Phoenix Avenue	06.03.2017	06.06.2017	05.07.2017
F3	Phoenix Avenue	08.03.2017	06.06.2017	05.07.2017
F4	Phoenix Avenue	11.04.2017	21.06.2017	20.07.2017

For some reason they've insisted on each fine issuing 2 identical NtKs, hence why 2 dates are offered above. 
My understanding is that the NtK needs to arrive within 56 days for it to be valid for PoFA, and each of the above were dated >2 months later.

Apologies Nosferatu, I'd gotten my days wrong and have amended to say 56 days. If you see my post above, each of the NtKs were received over 2 months after the initial "offence".

I've also amended to Terry T/A CCPC and removed Ltd as suggested. 

nosferatu1001

Its essential that you make sure you are precise and perfect here - you must use the correct identity each and every time. TS is one entity, CCPC Ltd is the other. Dont get confused.