dcb legal - CCPC (you know the drill)

blackdog2220

well turn your "thank you" mode off and just think of DCBL and terry towel as 2 thugs that are about to mug you as you cross the road 

KeithP

LJB179 said:

KeithP said:

LJB179 said:

KeithP said:

Seemslegitium said:

LJB179 said:

KeithP said:

LJB179 said:

Yes, I count 56 days from 11th Dec to 5th Jan - then we should add 2 days on to account for delivery time. Is this written into the rules?

Rules?? It's Statute Law. POFA 2012 Sch4 para 8(4) to (6)...

(4) The notice must be given by—

(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.

(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

Fantastic, thank you. This doesn't change anything with regards to the pursuit of the driver, based on what was said above, so they will still go after me if they think I was the driver at the time?

...I believe PoFA also covers the deadlines for NtD (Notice to Driver).

It does. A NtD must be served on the driver at the time of the parking event.

Is this the notice to driver? 

Possibly. Is the Issue Date / Time the date and time of the alleged parking event?

It is Keith, yes - it shows the time and date of the event and the time period between which they began monitoring and then ticketed the car (12 mins).

Then yes, that is a copy of the Notice to Driver.

nosferatu1001

As this wasn't answered for you op

a contract matters. A sign conveys the supposed contract. Without a disclosed entity there cannot be a contract as you must have sight of the contracting entity. That is trite LAW

you still seem to think pofa is all there is. It bloody isn't.  This is ALL founded in contract law, and so you look at contract law. 

Oook it up. Please. Fourth time I've told you exactly what the issue is. 

LJB179

nosferatu1001 said:

As this wasn't answered for you op

a contract matters. A sign conveys the supposed contract. Without a disclosed entity there cannot be a contract as you must have sight of the contracting entity. That is trite LAW

you still seem to think pofa is all there is. It bloody isn't.  This is ALL founded in contract law, and so you look at contract law. 

Oook it up. Please. Fourth time I've told you exactly what the issue is. 

Contract Law, got it! Will do, thanks. This will go into my email to DCBL. I shall be starting with the draft from the pepipoo forum and then amending it with the additional stuff we've discussed. From what you've all told me they're likely to still take this all the way, but I feel as though I'm in a good position.

KeithP said:

LJB179 said:

KeithP said:

LJB179 said:

KeithP said:

Seemslegitium said:

LJB179 said:

KeithP said:

LJB179 said:

Yes, I count 56 days from 11th Dec to 5th Jan - then we should add 2 days on to account for delivery time. Is this written into the rules?

Rules?? It's Statute Law. POFA 2012 Sch4 para 8(4) to (6)...

(4) The notice must be given by—

(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.

(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

Fantastic, thank you. This doesn't change anything with regards to the pursuit of the driver, based on what was said above, so they will still go after me if they think I was the driver at the time?

...I believe PoFA also covers the deadlines for NtD (Notice to Driver).

It does. A NtD must be served on the driver at the time of the parking event.

Is this the notice to driver? 

Possibly. Is the Issue Date / Time the date and time of the alleged parking event?

It is Keith, yes - it shows the time and date of the event and the time period between which they began monitoring and then ticketed the car (12 mins).

Then yes, that is a copy of the Notice to Driver.

Right, so apparently this was. I don't have a copy of it though, just what they sent me on the SAR, which does show it on the window and then that is the PDF of the original. So, in this case, they have complied, however, evidently they did not send the follow up (NTK) on time, so they can only enforce this upon the driver now is what I'm hearing. That is great news.

1505grandad

" I don't have a copy of it though, just what they sent me on the SAR, which does show it on the window ...."

Google "ghost ticketing"

LJB179

1505grandad said:

" I don't have a copy of it though, just what they sent me on the SAR, which does show it on the window ...."

Google "ghost ticketing"

Helpful, will do, thanks!

Umkomaas

From what you've all told me they're likely to still take this all the way,

From where do you get that impression?  With all the flack that's flying here, PePiPoo and LegalBeagles, and the BPA seemingly trying to cover the tracks, I doubt Terry will be keen to put his head above the parapet and place this in front of a Judge. No guarantee, but time will tell.

LJB179

Umkomaas said:

From what you've all told me they're likely to still take this all the way,

From where do you get that impression?  With all the flack that's flying here, PePiPoo and LegalBeagles, and the BPA seemingly trying to cover the tracks, I doubt Terry will be keen to put his head above the parapet and place this in front of a Judge. No guarantee, but time will tell.

I was just reading on many of the threads and two things jumped out:
1) DCBL don't care, so assuming that I am not to contact CCPC directly at any point other than to ask for the SAR (?), it will not have a material impact.
2) At this point it feels as though they usually feel as though they've gambled enough and continue to ride it out until the case is closed one way or another

To clarify: 'you' = the experts/advisors helping, not just you as an individual.

blackdog2220

they may have gambled and sent paperwork out in bulk , but as a person thats affected by a claim YOU are in a very good position to have both Terry towel and DCBL sanctioned , according to the DVLA , terry towel T/A has never breen a member of the bpa , the LTD company have since 2009 
why not start asking a few questions at the BPA and DVLA , someone may just act 

however your job this morning is to contact DCBL and thank them for the offer of alternalte dispute resilution 

Umkomaas

As I said

time will tell.

I'm as interested as any other regular here in seeing how far this goes.  While I hope on an individual basis no current victim is subject to having to jump through all the hoops they need to get through, but on a 'big picture' basis, I desperately want at least one well-defended case to get to court, because if Terry gets a bloody nose then he risks a potentially serious haemorrhage. He has so much more to lose than you, or any of his other court prey. 

Just my opinion. IANAL.