dcb legal - CCPC (you know the drill)

LJB179

blackdog2220 said:

LJB179 said:

But there is no POPLA on this case, right, as I never appealed? So, unless they agree to go down that route, it is a non-starter.

why not ask the BPA , also contact the DVLA 

the BPA KNOW what has happened , but are going la la la hoping that dcbl will drop your case and you  will move on , whilst Mr terry towels portfolio is studied by DCBL 

I suspect (with help) terry towel has covered the DPA by having duel ICO reg , BUT he has totally cocked up on the NTK , and DCBL are saying alternate dispute resilution , he has not a chance of winning at POPLa and its going to cost him £25 a try , PS , popla is on hold , sort of indefinatly , , whilst case active no court case can be started 

in black and white offered by claimants solisitor , they cannot retract that 
the only sutable dispute resilution in a case like this , is the one that would have been offered at the time , which was popla ,popla on on lockdown , till god knows when and DCBL cannot instigeate cout case untill result 

you know the signage and NTK were super faulty so you will win 

the guy thatts posting on pepipoo 

amend this to suit your case 
Dear Sirs,

I refer to your reference numbers [redacted] and [redacted] dated 28/01/2021. I am unsure that your claim is legitimate.
I wish to note that your client has failed to invoke Keeper Liability, as per the requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), so liability cannot be transferred to myself (the Keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged event) from the Driver. As these events transpired almost 4 years ago, I have no recollection of who the driver was at the time of the event(s).

Also, your client has failed to issue the Notice to Keeper (NtK) within the timeframe required in PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 8 (4), which (depending on the nature of the ticket issued, requires that the creditor must send an NtK within 28 days of the event occurring, and delivered within 56 days for windscreen tickets. For non-windscreen tickets, an NtK must be sent within 14 days.)

I require that you advise me as to what legal authority you have to add an amount of £70 per PCN to your claim. As I am sure you are aware, this is known as a ‘Double Recovery’ charge, and should you proceed to make a court claim it is likely that the case will be struck out by default, as Judges often interpret this as an ‘Abuse of Process’ as has happened in a recent claim made by BWLegal in Luton County Court (claim number F0DP77KP).

Regardless, I also want to inform you of the following:
(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.
(b) I have sent your client a Subject Access Request (SAR)

As you say your client is open to Alternative Dispute Resolution, I wish to offer them an opportunity to supply a POPLA case number for each of the PCNs associated with the reference numbers above, of which there are 5 PCNs total. I will then appeal my case to POPLA, who can decide whether these PCNs should be upheld, or if they should be dismissed, as per the BPA Codes of Practice (CoP), which your client should be familiar with. Your client failed to issue POPLA codes at the time, despite my explicit request when dealing with your client’s internal Appeals team that should my appeal be denied, I wish to be sent a POPLA code with the rejection, so I can proceed to appeal my case to POPLA, which I am entitled to, as per their Trade Association’s (BPA) CoP.

Lastly, if your client wishes to continue through the courts instead of my ADR method provided, I request that you merge the reference numbers ([redacted] and [redacted]) into a single court case before proceeding, as this saves all parties involved time, money and man-hours.

Please reply within 7 days from the date of this email with your intentions

Yours faithfully

Thanks, I shall draft this up tonight. Do you have the link for the pepipoo forum - keen to take a little look if the case is similar. Are you advising on that one also or just keeping track of it?

blackdog2220

the guy is also posting on here , but slightly different help here and pepipoo hxxp ,,,,forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=137974

you need to nail DCBL down to the resilution thing and state POPLa , smitz will NOT want to go down that road , but if DCBL decline , more fodder for court 

also be asking bpa why the ntk was from non existant company 

and the DVLA need a nod , as smittz is and has been flouting POFa ,  

nosferatu1001

OP you need to stop getting buried in this and step back a little to let it sink in
Contracts: you have to know who you are contracting with - the legal entity. CCPC is NOT a legal entity; it has no existence at CH nor is it a real person. The sole trader MUST put THEIR names on any signs, else 1) They commit an offence and 2) There is no entity, meaning no contract can ever ever ever be formed. 

DCBL: Do the debt denied, 30 days. You can go into details of a defence if you choose to do so but given DCBL dont give two figs about you or this claim right now, I wouldnt bother. Just styate the debt is denied as no contract can be formed with an unknown entity, if you wish to.
You could also state that their client failed to comply with the provisions of POFA2012 to hold you, the keeper, liable, but bear this in mind: the NtK is still "valid", it just cant be enforced against the keeper. if they know who the driver was - whcih can include being asked this in court, where you must not lie - then the alleged debt can still be proven against the driver. To repeat: POFA only helps a keeper. It does not "invalidate" anything if they dont meet the requiremetns of POFA

Not a hope they will agree to POPLA, but trying - once, without waffle - could look good if this goes to court

Umkomaas

@nosferatu1001 said:

Not a hope they will agree to POPLA, but trying - once, without waffle - could look good if this goes to court

If they do refuse POPLA as a suitable ADR service, write back and ask who do they believe to be one.

blackdog2220

ouch , isnt steve pinner a drinking buddy of hurley purley , < make sentance longer for bot>

LJB179

nosferatu1001 said:

OP you need to stop getting buried in this and step back a little to let it sink in
Contracts: you have to know who you are contracting with - the legal entity. CCPC is NOT a legal entity; it has no existence at CH nor is it a real person. The sole trader MUST put THEIR names on any signs, else 1) They commit an offence and 2) There is no entity, meaning no contract can ever ever ever be formed. 

DCBL: Do the debt denied, 30 days. You can go into details of a defence if you choose to do so but given DCBL dont give two figs about you or this claim right now, I wouldnt bother. Just styate the debt is denied as no contract can be formed with an unknown entity, if you wish to.
You could also state that their client failed to comply with the provisions of POFA2012 to hold you, the keeper, liable, but bear this in mind: the NtK is still "valid", it just cant be enforced against the keeper. if they know who the driver was - whcih can include being asked this in court, where you must not lie - then the alleged debt can still be proven against the driver. To repeat: POFA only helps a keeper. It does not "invalidate" anything if they dont meet the requiremetns of POFA

Not a hope they will agree to POPLA, but trying - once, without waffle - could look good if this goes to court

Thanks for bringing it back to the main point, I think I am clear on the process I need to follow, but I'm just probing to find as many holes as possible.

In terms of looking out for myself in this claim, I need to file all of the above to dcb legal, whilst simultaneously I can dig with DVLA and BPA to understand more about the nature of the handover between the sole trading and ltd orgs. My best defences thus far appear to be the signage being incorrect in accordance with the POFA requirements and the fact that the charge cannot be enforced against the keeper, only the driver.

Would this be a fair summary?

Umkomaas

My best defences thus far appear to be the signage being incorrect in accordance with the POFA requirements

What requirements does PoFA place on signage, and if so, how does it not comply?

blackdog2220

the NTK was late and had wrong information on it in regard to making a payment 

dont forget the POPLa , they will love that and remove you from xmas card list 

LJB179

Umkomaas said:

My best defences thus far appear to be the signage being incorrect in accordance with the POFA requirements

What requirements does PoFA place on signage, and if so, how does it not comply?

The below was pasted earlier on, so I assume that the point around there being no name or registered company present on the sign would be a breach?

The Parking Ticket (aka Notice to Driver)

Schedule 4 paragraph 7 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory set of information that must be included on the parking ticket. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Driver is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

• Which car the ticket relates to
• What land the car was parked on
• The period the car was parked
• When and how the parking rules were broken
• What the parking charges are for the infringement of the rules, and of the maximum additional costs they may seek to recover,  and the date by which those parking charges should be paid
• Any discounts for paying within 14 days – which should be at least 40% of the full charge under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (applies to BPA Members only)
• How to pay and to whom (this must be the person legally entitled to the money – the “Creditor”)
• The date the time the notice was issued
• How appeals and complaints can be dealt with – for parking companies who are members of the B PA

blackdog2220

LJB179 said:

Umkomaas said:

My best defences thus far appear to be the signage being incorrect in accordance with the POFA requirements

What requirements does PoFA place on signage, and if so, how does it not comply?

The below was pasted earlier on, so I assume that the point around there being no name or registered company present on the sign would be a breach?

The Parking Ticket (aka Notice to Driver)

Schedule 4 paragraph 7 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory set of information that must be included on the parking ticket. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Driver is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

• Which car the ticket relates to
• What land the car was parked on
• The period the car was parked
• When and how the parking rules were broken
• What the parking charges are for the infringement of the rules, and of the maximum additional costs they may seek to recover,  and the date by which those parking charges should be paid
• Any discounts for paying within 14 days – which should be at least 40% of the full charge under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (applies to BPA Members only)
• How to pay and to whom (this must be the person legally entitled to the money – the “Creditor”)
• The date the time the notice was issued
• How appeals and complaints can be dealt with – for parking companies who are members of the B PA

incorrect name on signage (you cannot form contact with non existant company)
the NTK must include the name of the legal entity claiming , the company mentionned does not exist 

it actually gets worse as we speak , the BPA are adament that the only "entity" using that or simular name is capitol carpark patrol LTD and that they have been member of the BPA since 2009