Voyeurmse: DCBLegal Autosec DelGrosso

Voyeurmse

Voyeurmse said:

Oh I oh I will!

Not sure if you can see this but he’s been trying to get planning to open a coffee shop.  People keep objecting. 

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink/new-coffee-shop-princes-avenue-3596296

I’ll look into how far it’s got ... maybe we can all object and make his life a bit harder 

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink/coffee-shop-princes-avenue-plan-3915416?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

Here’s an update. Looks like was turned down twice. He withdrew plans Mar 2020 with no explanation. Interesting, maybe council got wind of the local contempt for him. 

patient_dream

Yes, a complaint to the ICO about the SAR.

As suggested, will DCBL continue given the Autosec cases are very shaky and on top of that DCBL are faking it by adding £70. 
DCBL should forget all about Autosec, they will end up with more egg on their face

Voyeurmse

patient_dream

As suggested, will DCBL continue given the Autosec cases are very shaky and on top of that DCBL are faking it by adding £70. 
DCBL should forget all about Autosec, they will end up with more egg on their face

It was the first debt collectors that added the £70 on, not dcbl.  

Strange that on Autosec payment page it states £179!
dcbl as yet haven’t added anything. 

Voyeurmse

Del Grosso seems to be concentrating on the property management side now.  Morland Aquisitions Ltd (thought it should be spelled Acquisitions).  Misspelled on purpose to confuse searches maybe? 

Perhaps he’s clocked on he can issue his own private property parking contracts to whoever he sold Autosec’s parking side to!?

BrownTrout

Voyeurmse said:

Management co replied to my MP.  I’d doesn’t say if a verbal or written contract.  Should he ask again for clarity?

Why bother when you will get a court claim anyway?

95Rollers

Do Maltings or your neighbours know what sort of person their contractor Peter is and of his reputation/ standing in the local community of Hull? Might be worth letting them know the implications of such associations could have on their brand. The information is all out there in the public domain on Google so its not a smear. Your service charges go towards the upkeep of property management including parking so worth bringing up at a meeting.

BrownTrout

95Rollers said:

Do Maltings know what sort of person their contractor is and of his reputation/ standing in the local community of Hull? Might be worth letting them know the implications of such associations could have on their brand. The information is all out there in the public domain on Google so its not a smear. Your service charges go towards the upkeep of property management including parking so worth bringing up at a meeting.

None of that has any relevance to this case (upcoming court claim)

95Rollers

Yeah your right that it doesn't - but if the OP can get the contract terminated then it will hopefully stop there being more court cases/ unfairly issued PCNs which many people just pay. 

patient_dream

Voyeurmse said:

patient_dream

As suggested, will DCBL continue given the Autosec cases are very shaky and on top of that DCBL are faking it by adding £70. 
DCBL should forget all about Autosec, they will end up with more egg on their face

It was the first debt collectors that added the £70 on, not dcbl.  

Strange that on Autosec payment page it states £179!
dcbl as yet haven’t added anything. 

Yes ... but as debt collectors offer a no win no fee, there is no £70 added when they pass it back to the PPC. It is the PPC who instruct the legal and adds the £70 they NEVER paid.
It is a fraudulent attempt by the PPC ?
Firms like DCBL accept their instructions without question and should request the PPC for proof that they paid the debt collector.

DCBL and the other legals claim an amount that is pure fiction. Thereafter they sign a statement of truth ?

If you look at the DCBL group thread, they were claiming damages to account for the fake add on.  

DCBL letters ... forum group thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6237177/dcbl-letters-forum-group-thread#latest


Did the PPC claim for damages when instructing DCBL ?  
The word DAMAGES is not part of either code of practice.  The only add on in each code of practice refers to £60 debt collection and  that can only happen if the PPC actually paid a debt collector.  Can they prove this and if asked will they also show fake proof

As we know, judges normally deduct the fake add-on but what is needed is a judge to apply the law regarding "statements of truth" that are false
 

95Rollers

patient_dream said:

Voyeurmse said:

patient_dream

As suggested, will DCBL continue given the Autosec cases are very shaky and on top of that DCBL are faking it by adding £70. 
DCBL should forget all about Autosec, they will end up with more egg on their face

It was the first debt collectors that added the £70 on, not dcbl.  

Strange that on Autosec payment page it states £179!
dcbl as yet haven’t added anything. 

Yes ... but as debt collectors offer a no win no fee, there is no £70 added when they pass it back to the PPC. It is the PPC who instruct the legal and adds the £70 they NEVER paid.
It is a fraudulent attempt by the PPC ?
Firms like DCBL accept their instructions without question and should request the PPC for proof that they paid the debt collector.

DCBL and the other legals claim an amount that is pure fiction. Thereafter they sign a statement of truth ?

If you look at the DCBL group thread, they were claiming damages to account for the fake add on.  

DCBL letters ... forum group thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6237177/dcbl-letters-forum-group-thread#latest


Did the PPC claim for damages when instructing DCBL ?  
The word DAMAGES is not part of either code of practice.  The only add on in each code of practice refers to £60 debt collection and  that can only happen if the PPC actually paid a debt collector.  Can they prove this and if asked will they also show fake proof

As we know, judges normally deduct the fake add-on but what is needed is a judge to apply the law regarding "statements of truth" that are false
 

I put in an SAR to DCBL legal asking a breakdown of who added this sum, what the additional £60 was for and where was the legal authorisation- they told me it was "admin/ debt recovery fees" added on by them I accordance with aurhority from BPA !!!   They also confirm that they do not buy debts from parking companies,but are instructed by them!  So where are the costs!?!  They are either  No Win No Fee or paid - I personally think its the former .  Also there is no mention of these terms of additional penalties on the PPCs parking signs either.

Total fiction as you pointed out.