DCB legal Autosec letter of claim

Voyeurmse

Rodent3768 said:

Voyeurmse said:

What are your thoughts on this reply from DVLA to my MP’s letter...?  We knew this anyway but comments appreciated. 

That is exactly the same as I received from my complaint to Graham Stuart too. He got a bog standard response from BPA too.

Same from BPA.  They said they would investigate breaches if we wanted them to investigate.  I’ve asked him to instruct them to do that.  I listed the codes which I believe were breached... quite a few!  

Voyeurmse

Do I need to reply to this?
Previous correspondence was Letter of claim!  Was expecting court papers...

KeithP

Voyeurmse said:

Do I need to reply to this?

No.

I'm a bit confused.
Is this thread discussing your parking incident, @Voyeurmse, or that of @holderness?

Voyeurmse

Sorry.  It’s mine. I listed in wrong one.  Holderness is at same stage as me.  

I’ll post it on mine. 

holderness

Still awaiting the court letters, I was given a final final chance to pay within 30 days after they rejected my reply to the LBA. They did send me a picture of me stood next to my vehicle which actually supports my claim that I was not parked but acting within the published terms of my lease which allows for loading and unloading to my property from common land. They agree that the parking company only had a verbal contract with the management company, but don't see that as a problem. I dont see any need to reply to DCB legal, the ball is in their court. I could have given them more information but they are the trained solicitors not me. 

patient_dream

holderness said:

Still awaiting the court letters, I was given a final final chance to pay within 30 days after they rejected my reply to the LBA. They did send me a picture of me stood next to my vehicle which actually supports my claim that I was not parked but acting within the published terms of my lease which allows for loading and unloading to my property from common land. They agree that the parking company only had a verbal contract with the management company, but don't see that as a problem. I dont see any need to reply to DCB legal, the ball is in their court. I could have given them more information but they are the trained solicitors not me. 

I understand that some cases a verbal contract can work but hey, this is the great parking scam and DCBL are trying to scam you by adding a fake £70

What DCBL think is not problem, turns to a problem in front of a judge.  Representing Autosec is a big enough problem for them anyway

Nothing to reply to. If you get court papers come back here but no contract is their downfall

holderness

Noting the other threads... I am also at WS stage with del Grosso. I sent my defence through 4 weeks ago so I should know within the next week or so if he wants to continue. I have inserted the late discontinuance clause and will seek a costs hearing in the case of a discontinuance after a court date is given. I will also cite Hoy v DOT, 17 Oct 2019 as the definition of the pusual of a 'hopeless case' along with the reasons I believe it became a vindictive and frivolous claim that should have been discontinued once all of the facts were known

I did get a non template threatening correspondence from a paralegal at DCBL stating they had consulted with the client and would confidently take it to court. I should therefore send them £170 (100 for del Grosso and 70 for them no doubt) immediatly to avoid incurring further costs. I will ask for that correspondence to be entered into evidence in the costs hearing if it gets that far

D_P_Dance

Wrt THE ADDED £70, have you read Excel v Wilkinson?

holderness

D_P_Dance said:

Wrt THE ADDED £70, have you read Excel v Wilkinson?

Yes thanks in the stickie thread, I have been helping one person out who has a £210 added charge for three £100 tickets. I would be very interested to hear them justify that in court, esp given the above case

D_P_Dance

They cannot justify it in ciour unless it is mentioned in the sign,