letter of claim DCBL

hullensien

Hi
I've trawled through a lot of these threads and the general advice is that I start a new thread as I now have a letter of claim- apologies if I shouldn't have done so
Letter of claim is from DCBLegal dated 15-7-21 relating to a PCN issued by Autosec on 22-2-2018 - issued in a private residential car park
I have had the 3 standard letters  - the Notice of Debt Recovery, Final Reminder, and Final Notice
These 3 were for an unpaid parking charge of £170 - £70 added on - the Notice of Debt Recovery was sent to two separate addresses - my current one, and the one on my V5C at the point of of ticketing - they didn't get my address from the DVLA
I appealed the PCN to AUTO SEC, but as with most other posters on here, it was ignored.
I have all documentation, emails, letters, responses from DVLA, TNC, etc

Couple of stand-outs for my situation
1  I am a long leaseholder in the property - There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the AUTO SEC - the ONLY restrictions refer to guest permits - mine is a residents permit
2  i have posted this on another thread - the car-park is bordered on 3 sides by listed buildings and walls - signage was affixed to these without listed building consent - I have emails from the local council initially advising signs were to be removed within 28 days - that didn't happen so a further email from the council advising that they have issued a Listed Building Enforcement Notice. The signs are not permitted now, nor have they ever been over the 8 plus years AUTO SEC have been issuing tickets and collection money.
In short - affixing sign to listed building without LBC is a criminal offence - contract considered illegal at formation if incapable of performance without an illegal act (ie affixing of signage) - contract will be void and treated as never entered into. DCBL's "basis of claim" is that the signs displayed set out the Terms of Parking (ie the "Contract") and i accepted the Contract
I have replied informally to response@dcblegal.co.uk. I have denied any debt, and advised them that I will defend in full if required stating Ex turpi causa non oritur actio as my defence. I also tacked on a SAR at the end as I want to know how they got my current address. 

Any suggestions on how to progress please - should I complete the on-line reply form?

Thanks in advance

Fruitcake

Follow the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in the second post of the NEWBIES.

This takes you from LBC to the court hearing. Do not fill out any forms about income/expenditure.

Complain to the landowner, your MP, and the DVLA. Also complain to the minister for housing as well as any other body concerned with historic buildings.
Local and national press might also be interested.

Your lease of course has primacy of contract, and that cannot be changed or removed without a ballot of all leaseholders and landlords in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Part IV, Variation of leases, Section 37. You should be asking the landowner when (not if) this happened and why you were not informed about this change to your lease. If no ballot took place then this is a derogation of grant, and the landowner can be held liable for the actions of their agents.

L & T Act 1987.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (legislation.gov.uk)

Part IV

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (legislation.gov.uk)

D_P_Dance

The added £70 is almost certainly unlawful.  Read this and complaain your MP..

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''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

hullensien

@Fruitcake
been in discussion with leader of local council - he has taken some interest
complained to DVLA - waste of time - not interested that reasonable cause had not been demonstrated to obtain my details
My solicitor complained to the landowner on my behalf - waste of time. Part of the response was "Personally speaking, If I'd been issued with the ticket, I would probably challenge it"
I am actually a shareholder in the company that owns the land!!

Fruitcake

hullensien said:

@Fruitcake
been in discussion with leader of local council - he has taken some interest
complained to DVLA - waste of time - not interested that reasonable cause had not been demonstrated to obtain my details
My solicitor complained to the landowner on my behalf - waste of time. Part of the response was "Personally speaking, If I'd been issued with the ticket, I would probably challenge it"
I am actually a shareholder in the company that owns the land!!

Then who the hell employed the PPC? I don't know enough about this sort of thing, but I would have thought you could make a court claim against both the PPC and whoever employed them.

KeithP

Is this now three threads we have about one Autosec incident?
Or are you telling us about three separate parking events?

holderness

As already advised your lease has primacy of contract
As a leaseholder ask your managing agent or a director of your leasehold company to provide details of when a WRITTEN contract was given allowing Autosec to take legal action for infringements on land they manage on behalf of the landowners and leaseholders
That is exactly what I did and after weeks of being fobbed off I found they only had a VERBAL contract to affix a sign and control parking, with any money taken in fines being kept in total by Autosec. So of course he was motivated to use every dubious technicality to issue tickets
I have been informed that the director at the management company that made this verbal contract recently retired
Autosec sold their parking business to baysentry this year so given these facts how delgrosso believes he has any standing in law to pursue these tickets in court is beyond me

hullensien

Director(s) of leasehold company don't respond - myself and other leaseholders continually fobbed off/ignored

Coupon-mad

I’d reply again to DCBL once your 30 days ‘on hold’ is up and tell them you will counterclaim for at least £500 if their client continues with the claim.  

Attach your evidence about everything and encourage them to back down or you will counterclaim and ask for your full costs for their client’s unreasonable conduct. The signs are illegal so the alleged contract is a nullity. And you have primacy of contract and your lease cannot be interfered with, and it grants parking rights to residents.

Get rid of all parking firms from your site. You do not need one.  Get together with other leaseholders and remove the existing PPC right now. 

hullensien

@Coupon-mad
If I counterclaim who is liable for any costs - DCBL or AUTO SEC

Coupon-mad

Obviously not DCBL they are only the solicitor not the Claimant. If you are worried Autosec are closed/closing down, state that you will claim against the landowner as a second Defendant.