dcb legal - CCPC (you know the drill)

LJB179

Everything else has been copied and pasted as per the template. If anything needs to be amended, please let me know. Cheers.

LJB179

Amended - deleted that last version.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3.       The defendant believes that this is an illegitimate claim, potentially amounting to a serious misuse of power and a breach of GDPR practices.

 

3.1.       The claimant failed to invoke Keeper Liability, as per the requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and as such, no liability can be placed upon the keeper of the vehicle at that point in time. The event allegedly took place on 11th November 2016 and the defendant has no recollection who the driver of the car was on that day. The first notice received by the claimant was in April 2020, with notices being sent periodically since. Prior to this, the defendant had no knowledge of the alleged incident having occurred.

 

3.2.       Specified within Paragraph 7 (2)(e) and Paragraph 8 (2)(h) is the requirement for a notice to ‘identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment must be made’. Capital Car Park Control, or Capital Carpark Control, the claimant’s self-identified name in its Notice to Keeper correspondence, was, and is, not a recognised legal entity. The creditor, as per their correspondence is Terry Szmitd and therefore, as outlined in Sections 1205 and 1206 of the Companies Act 2006, no contract could be formed.

 

3.3       The claimant failed to issue the Notice to Keeper within the timeframe outlined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As specified in Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 (5), The notice must have been delivered no sooner than 28 days after the date of which the initial ticket was issued, and no later than 56 days. Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 (6) specifies that a posted notice is not assumed to have been delivered until the second working day following which it is posted. The alleged incident occurred on 11th November 2016, whilst the first Notice to Keeper is dated 5th January 2017, meaning that it was not received until 9th January. It is clear from the above alone that this does not comply with the required legal protections in place. 

 

3.4       Terry Szmitd has never been a member of either of the two Accredited Trade Associations, British Parking Association ltd (BPA) or the International Parking Community (IPC), and therefore should have had no access to the DVLA database. As per email correspondence recently received from BPA, it is Capital Car Park Control Ltd, not incorporated until 24th August 2020, who have been members since 2010, not Terry Szmidt. The two entities are not connected from a legal standpoint and should not be treated as such. 

 

3.5       There is no recourse for a ‘double recovery’ charge to apply in this situation, and as such, this claim should be denied. The initial claim was £50 if paid within 28 days of receipt (and this was never received), then it immediately doubled to £100, then £170 with DCBL’s fee added, and now, finally, with additional costs for interest, plus court costs and legal fees, it amounts to £319.16 in total. A precedent for this was set in the Luton Country Court claim (F0DP77KP) on March 13th 2020, whereby BWLegal were advised that this was an abuse of process and the case was struck out. 

 

3.6        In 2020, a SAR was requested, and it could be seen that there is no clear readable photo of the sign detailing the terms in which my vehicle was allegedly in breach of. It is also noted that the claimant, nor does any other client, enforce Private Parking Controls on that piece of tarmac presently and, as such, and therefore it is requested that proof is provided of the claimant’s permission to display such signs.

 

3.7       DCBL, acting on behalf of the claimant previously made mention to the fact that the claimant was open to using an Alternative Dispute Resolution process. A suggestion was provided to utilise the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) process, as the defendant was never offered a POPLA number at any point in this process. Despite several attempts made to correspond with DCBL, no response was provided and therefore this process could not be followed up on.

1505grandad

Check the surname spelling of the creditor.

LJB179

1505grandad said:

Check the surname spelling of the creditor.

Everything else seem OK?

Jenni_D

3.1 and 3.3 seem contradictory ... you say in 3.1 that you were unaware of the PCN until April 2020, yet in 3.3 you seem to acknowledge that the NTK was received in January 2017. If the latter was determined from a SAR response then you need to make that clear.

LJB179

Jenni_D said:

3.1 and 3.3 seem contradictory ... you say in 3.1 that you were unaware of the PCN until April 2020, yet in 3.3 you seem to acknowledge that the NTK was received in January 2017. If the latter was determined from a SAR response then you need to make that clear.

Maybe a quick rewording - 'would not have been delivered'?

Jenni_D

Sorry but I don't understand your reply - it doesn't seem to address the point I was making. If you didn't know about the PCN until April 2020, how can you in any way make a statement about it being deemed delivered on a specific date in January 2017?

Or put another way - how can you know that the NTK was issued in January 2017 if you have never received it? If you HAVE received it, you need to make it clear HOW you received it.

LJB179

Jenni_D said:

Sorry but I don't understand your reply - it doesn't seem to address the point I was making. If you didn't know about the PCN until April 2020, how can you in any way make a statement about it being deemed delivered on a specific date in January 2017?

Or put another way - how can you know that the NTK was issued in January 2017 if you have never received it? If you HAVE received it, you need to make it clear HOW you received it.

Better? NB. I've also capitalised Defendant in all points now, for consistency.

3.3       The claimant failed to issue the Notice to Keeper within the timeframe outlined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As specified in Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 (5), The notice must have been delivered no sooner than 28 days after the date of which the initial ticket was issued, and no later than 56 days. Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 (6) specifies that a posted notice is not assumed to have been delivered until the second working day following which it is posted. The alleged incident occurred on 11th November 2016, whilst the first Notice to Keeper, received via a SAR request made in 2020, is dated 5th January 2017, meaning that it would not have been delivered to the Defendant until 9th January 2017. It is clear from the above that the process undertaken by the claimant does not comply with the required legal protections in place.

Le_Kirk

LJB179 said:

The alleged incident occurred on 11th November 2016, whilst the first Notice to Keeper, received via a SAR request made in 2020, is dated 5th January 2017, meaning that it would not have been delivered to the Defendant until 9th January 2017. It is clear from the above that the process undertaken by the claimant does not comply with the required legal protections in place.

That'll do it.

Jenni_D

Le_Kirk said:

LJB179 said:

The alleged incident occurred on 11th November 2016, whilst the first Notice to Keeper, received via a SAR request made in 2020, is dated 5th January 2017, meaning that it would not have been delivered to the Defendant until 9th January 2017. It is clear from the above that the process undertaken by the claimant does not comply with the required legal protections in place.

That'll do it.

Agreed. Now there's no wriggle room or potential for ambiguity.