Claim Form from DCBLegal.

Robbo25

Hi all just after some advice, received a Claim Form from DCBLegal regarding over staying at a First Parking llp for a few minutes, i wrote to them explaining i was delivering something i privately sold and was told by the concierge of the building to park over there (at the side) of entrace to building while i delivered it.
I sent in a receipt and the tenants door number as well, but they declined it, so i ignored everything else from them until i get a Claim Form from DCBLegal  issue date 10/02/2021 for a County Court claim and they have added an extra £60 (abuse of process) i have filed online a AOS but i not sure how to go about/what to do next, i have read through the newbies but not sure how to put defence together, do i go with the (abuse of process) as my defence?
Please Advise,

Many Thanks.

Fruitcake

Please tell us when you did the AoS. KeithP hopefully will then be along to give you some important dates and other information.

Use the ready written template defence from the sticky threads, adapt paragraphs 2 and 3 to suit your case, then post just those two paragraphs here for the regulars to check over.

Can you get a statement from the concierge about the event?

What happened when you complained to the landowners?

Covid regs permitting, get pics of the site and signage.

Look up the (Laura) Jopson vs Homeguard (Services) case where the judge said stopping/delivering is not parking. It's around paragraphs 19 - 20. Hopefully this link will work, but it is readily available on the internet.

CM14P02455/CH13P02050 (wsimg.com)

Robbo25

Hi Thanks for response.

AOS was done yesterday, with claim date as 10/02/2021
This was nearly a year ago so not sure if concierge is still there or would remember/be willing to help. 
Didn't complain to land owner as it was difficult to find who to complain to.
Will get picks at the weekend.
Should i run with the delivering situation and abuse of process?
I dont have any of the documents i sent to First Parking as they never returned them, can i ask DCBL for what information they have on me?

beamerguy

i was delivering something i privately sold and was told by the concierge of the building to park over there (at the side) of entrance to building while i delivered it.

A desperate parking company and a legal who will not have a clue what happened.
YES, DCBL are scamming you with the fake £60

This is a very persuasive case and easy for a judge to dismiss the claim as abuse of process.. 

EXCEL v WILKINSON ..... claim struck out for ABUSE OF PROCESS.  DDJ Jackson who is now HHJ Jackson made this ruling.  
https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Fruitcake

Robbo25 said:

Hi Thanks for response.

AOS was done yesterday, with claim date as 10/02/2021
This was nearly a year ago so not sure if concierge is still there or would remember/be willing to help. 
Didn't complain to land owner as it was difficult to find who to complain to.
Will get picks at the weekend.
Should i run with the delivering situation and abuse of process?
I dont have any of the documents i sent to First Parking as they never returned them, can i ask DCBL for what information they have on me?

It won't hurt to ask around about the concierge.
Every piece of land in the UK has and owner, and a cancellation by them is always best. Is the person to whom the delivery was made still there as they may know?
Of course you should use the delivery/Jopson case; and yes of course you should run with the double recovery/abuse of process. That's why I mentioned it.

Send an SAR as per the NEWBIES to the scammers. This should flush out all your previous contacts and any other personal data they hold about you. Send proof of ID such as a copy of your V5C or two redacted utility bills or card/bank statements.

nosferatu1001

You go with the template defence, adding in para 2 and 3 your background facts. Authorised to be there by the concierge, who as a rep of the building owner gave you a licence to park in X location. You had no need to enter a secondary contract to obtain a licence to park, asnd your first licence is superior in all ways to any contract offered by an unconnected 3rd party

D_P_Dance

Read this

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

If they take you to court they are likely to struggle.

KeithP

Robbo25 said:

AOS was done yesterday, with claim date as 10/02/2021

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 15th March 2021 to file your Defence.

That's over three 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Robbo25

D_P_Dance said:

Read this

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

If they take you to court they are likely to struggle.

Sent this to the scammers (DCBL) yesterday.
Thanks.

beamerguy

Robbo25 said:

D_P_Dance said:

Read this

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

If they take you to court they are likely to struggle.

Sent this to the scammers (DCBL) yesterday.
Thanks.

Be interesting to see their reply.  Sad that DCBL think they are the "bees knees" ... all cloud dreaming stuff when they act for scammers and fakers.

Coupon-mad

Robbo25 said:

D_P_Dance said:

Read this

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

If they take you to court they are likely to struggle.

Sent this to the scammers (DCBL) yesterday.

That's somewhat pointless, no idea why, you are meant to be doing a full defence.  It's relevant to a defence in terms of explaining later to a Judge why a PPC can't add fake sums on top of a PCN but isn't any sort of precedent.  You will get a  reply that you will then waste time reading, panicking about (because they will tell you the case is not a precedent and they'd be right) and you will then come here wondering if you have a case, all on the back foot.

Can we start again?  You are doing a defence. You were delivering to a residential address. So all you need is the template defence, adapted at point #3 by copying any other defence point citing Jopson v Homeguard (a persuasive appeal case about loading/unloading at a residential address).

No links, all this is on the forum for the sake of a search - read other defences citing Jopson BUT DON'T COPY THEIR ENTIRE WORDING.  Use the template defence as your base and simply learn what to put in #3 by reading maybe ten Jopson search results.