DCBLegal/CCPC County Court

FineFighter

Hi all,
resurrecting an old thread as I've now received a county court claim from northampton. 

As I've linked above, I sent an email (in early March) and not heard from them, so I was hopeful that this had been drawn to a close (to the LOC replies DCBL email address). 

Given this has now proceeded to the claim stage, I'm determined to follow through and counterclaim, given that both of these have been contested at POPLA and they lost.
Does anybody know how I can get copies of the POPLA decisions so I can submit in evidence to the court? 

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

FineFighter

Apologies, original letter with notice of counterclaim is below. 
CC claim - they chose to enter two for two separate locations, even though its the same company?!.

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

The Issue Date on the Claim form is 14th May 2021.

FineFighter said:

Thanks for feedback, have made changes as suggested. Grateful for any feedback or if people think it's worth sending. 

Dear Sirs,  

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

Terry Szmidt 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. 

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 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,  

Redx

FineFighter said:

Hi all,
resurrecting an old thread as I've now received a county court claim from northampton. 

As I've linked above, I sent an email (in early March) and not heard from them, so I was hopeful that this had been drawn to a close (to the LOC replies DCBL email address). 

Given this has now proceeded to the claim stage, I'm determined to follow through and counterclaim, given that both of these have been contested at POPLA and they lost.
Does anybody know how I can get copies of the POPLA decisions so I can submit in evidence to the court? 

You should have the evidence in your Popla appeal evidence pack plus your email should have the decisions

If these are lost , email a SAR to Popla to obtain all your data including the missing decisions etc , try for everything , including those evidence packs

KeithP

FineFighter said:

Does anybody know how I can get copies of the POPLA decisions so I can submit in evidence to the court? 

Send a Subject Access Request to PoPLA asking for them.

KeithP

FineFighter said:

CC claim - they chose to enter two for two separate locations, even though its the same company?!.

I don't understand that.
How many County Court Claims do you have?

FineFighter

KeithP said:

FineFighter said:

CC claim - they chose to enter two for two separate locations, even though its the same company?!.

I don't understand that.
How many County Court Claims do you have?

Two. Same date and same companies, and by DCBL. extra infuriating as when I previously pointed this out to them, they amalgamated into one, but have chosen to try as 2 separate cases, but two separate streets in fairness so I'm guessing they're not thinking they'll lose both. 

KeithP

FineFighter said:

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

The Issue Date on the Claim form is 14th May 2021.

 What is the full name of the Claimant exactly as specified on the Claim Form?

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th May, you have until Wednesday 2nd June to file an Acknowledgment of Service. Do not file an AoS before 19th May, but otherwise there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 16th June 2021 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

FineFighter

KeithP said:

 What is the full name of the Claimant exactly as specified on the Claim Form?

Terry Szmidt 

Thank you for linking these things. I will make sure to do AoS by end of the week and make a start on my defence. 

Is it worth asking the court to hear both claims together given its the same parking company and it will be the same arguments? 

- noncompliant signage (as POPLA adjudicator agreed in my appeals)
- NtK out of time for PoFA 
- claiming for money that is not contractually due (the £70 per invoice added on). 

At what point do I submit a counterclaim? 

I'll have a proper read through the Dropbox tomorrow. I've just been a bit shocked and shook up, especially by the amounts they are now claiming, having thought this was dead and buried

Coupon-mad

Terry Szmidt

Just his name alone?