Autosec and DCBL Letter of Claim

KeithP

Can you please show us an unredacted copy of that agreement between Autosec and TNC.

@Fruitcake will then be along to confirm whether or not it meets the needs of the Companies Act

Rodent3768

@KeithP That's all I have at the moment. It was sent to me by DVLA.

KeithP

Rodent3768 said:

@KeithP That's all I have at the moment. It was sent to me by DVLA.

Oh, sorry.
I thought it was you who had hidden the names of the signatories.

Castle

Some former employees views:-
https://uk.indeed.com/cmp/Tnc-Collections/reviews
(Seemed have gone downhill in 2019!)

Rodent3768

Castle said:

Some former employees views:-
https://uk.indeed.com/cmp/Tnc-Collections/reviews
(Seemed have gone downhill in 2019!)

Did it ever get to the top of the hill? 

Rodent3768

I've gone back to the DVLA about the lack of authorised signatories or witnesses on the AutoSec/TNC contract and also about the tampering on the locations (adding 'various' to the locations) just out of badness. I don't expect I'll get anything worthwhile back from them but it fills the time while I wait for AutoSec to respond to DCB Legal about the invalid location and to my MP (Graham Stuart) about the same issue.

desole

Because of the supreme court ruling of the value of these claims we need new legislation to supersede it.  We used to have cowboy clampers, then they split into two groups, cowboy parking companies and cowboy HCEO/debt collectors.

DCBL has so many videos and testimony online about it's shoddy practices that the Gov should shut it down and ban all directors for life from being a director or person of significant control of a company.

TBH I am surprised that there have not been reprisals in person on their offices and Directors, such is the level of their abuse.

I had them come to my door six times, I did not engage and on their 4th attempt they tried to kick my door in (presumably to say they found it open), I had 4 locks and a chain on it so they damaged where the frame connects to the wall.  Now I have a video doorbell so if they try to do any criminal damage again I will have evidence of it.  I also fitted a CCTV camera on other side so they can't damage one without the other.

So on reading through the 7 pages (so far) it seems that your experience is just another reason we need to scrap parking enforcement completely, or at least make the max fine £20 with no escalation and a fixed price for collection letters for ALL parties of £10, they are all computerised these days and cost less than 50p to send.

DCBL mention interest, my understanding is that is only chargeable once they have a Court Judgement.

To get a Judgement they need evidence of claim and it needs to show that all procedures were followed by the company they purport to be claiming for AND the originator of the alleged breach. 

It seems from your posts that the originator did not even have a valid contract in place with any freeholder or leaseholder, so their claim is void, yet you are still being put through the wringer. 

Time and time again we see these companies buying up old data and trying it on, this practice has to be banned, whether it be parking, bad debts, old energy debts. 

I had an old debt that I thought had gone off statute, it was one of many I had, but someone bought the debt, got backdoor CCJ at an address I had not lived at for over 10 years (not the current address I was at on CRD).  I did not see the claim, so for £2 they got their CCJ.  I found out it would cost me £300 off to get it cancelled but I had to prove before appeal that it was not valid.

Obviously we need a deterrent for this kind of behaviour, for example in my case them being forced to pay the £300 and because they failed to serve to the correct address which was accessible to them (I know because they sought the debt from the correct address) WITHIN THE 6 YEARS.  They pulled this stunt just a few months before it expired.

So for you it is DCBL and their Client who should be liable for all the stress and time you have spent on this, funny how you can't claim the £80 a letter they can.  Maybe we need a fixed £5000 penalty for bringing faulty claim, this would make them think twice.

Personally, I think if any opposition party wanted to seriously improve their chances of getting in, a promise to ban HCEO's for non business, and at residential addresses, a reduction to 3 years on debt collection. A raise on £20k limit on DRO's to £50k and a ban on all these data buy up abuses.

Good Luck with your fight.

Rodent3768

Latest update.

Response from DCB Legal regarding SAR from them as AutoSec will not provide anything (already reported to ICO).

Dear Mr Rodent,

You have requested correspondence between DCB Legal and our Client, Auto Security Ltd t/a AutoSec. You may wish to seek independent legal advice as such correspondence is legally privileged. This concludes your Subject Access Request to DCB Legal.

Love and kisses,
DCB Legal

I'm going back with:

Thankyou for your response to my Subject Access Request.

However, I'm in the position where I cannot respond to your letter before claim as I do not have any information from yourselves or your client. AutoSec are either unable, or more likely unwilling, to send me the information I am entitled to.

I have previously asked them for a copy of the PCN, and all correspondence through letters and emails between us. I know there are emails and letters but they state they do not have them and have now refused to respond to my communications. They have just pointed me to their poor website stating that has all the details. It doesn't. I need to see a full copy of the PCN (front and back) to see the terms and conditions, not just abbreviated details. I also need to see such documents as any Notice to Keeper.

Without this information I cannot make an informed decision or defence of their claim. After each of my attempts to get information they have instructed me to contact you which was why I asked you for the information.

It begs the question that if AutoSec do not have any documents; how do they intend, or how can they justify, resorting to court action without evidence?

There is also the outstanding issue that they did not have a legal right to carry out parking enforcement on the land the vehicle was ticketed on, but this is already being discussed between yourselves and AutoSec.

I appreciate that you earn no matter what happens, but without evidence and especially not sharing it with me as the defendant, AutoSec will be laughed out of court and you will be stained by association. I would strongly recommend that you advise AutoSec to cancel any and all PCNs associated with the vehicle, cease all court actions and apologise for harassing me.

I look forward to receiving confirmation of this.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Rodent

Let's see what happens. 

95Rollers

Good luck - former clamping thug Peter Del Grosso is a vile convicted racist misogynist criminal and poor excuse for a human being! Its sad that the DVLA will SELL our details to his company because he is part of an unregulated unfussy ATA who are happy to partner with convicted criminals and the BPA/ DCBL should be ashamed too for partnering with him - just more proof these maggots have NO integrity whatsoever! 

https://hessleblog.wordpress.com/tag/peter-del-grosso/

Coupon-mad

I really hope you have done the Government Consultation by email and objected absolutely to ANY debt recovery fake 'costs' being added on top of a parking charge (of course) and told them what you think of them increasing charges to £130 instead of £100...which is already extortionate.

You have 6 days to do the consultation.  Please, please, do and do it by email so you attach evidence.  Spread the word, is closes within days, next week!

Also, I hope you've also registered for the Group Action, against the DVLA (open to anyone with a PCN since 2018?).  Gotta be in it to win it!  Nothing to lose, and it's genuine.

Read the threads about those important matters, they both need doing, right now, this week.