Dcbl letter before claim stage

Cp100

Hi all, 

I have received 6 pcns through the post from around 5 years ago (not 6) from dcbl on behalf of ukpl. One letter has 5 on and the total is £800 and the other has 1 on with a total of £160.

So they’re asking for £160 per pcn.

I have requested SAR and received the SAR back stating that two of the 6 pcns are repeats, so dcbl have tried to charge my twice for two of the pcns. 

Where do I stand with this? I’m about to email dcbl to get my 30 days to seek debt advice and wondering if I should ask them for a breakdown of the total of the debt? 

Also if I just let them take it to court would it just get thrown out straight away as they have tried charging me twice for two of the pcns? 

Any help would be appreciated.

many thanks 

Chris 

1505grandad

What is the full name of the ppc?

Coupon-mad

Yep, no such firm as UKPL, so please confirm.

You must also say to DCBLegal (or is it only debt crawlers. DCB Ltd?) that they must consolidate the cases and explain how they think they can charge the false added £60 five times for a couple of letter threatograms that should be one case. 

Search the forum for Henderson v Henderson and use that wording to DCBL snd tell us, is it DCBLEGAL or their sidekicks the debt crawler pointless aggrsssive misleading letter specialists?

Cp100

Sorry it’s dcb legal 

Cp100

Coupon-mad said:

Yep, no such firm as UKPL, so please confirm.

You must also say to DCBLegal (or is it only debt crawlers. DCB Ltd?) that they must consolidate the cases and explain how they think they can charge the false added £60 five times for a couple of letter threatograms that should be one case. 

Search the forum for Henderson v Henderson and use that wording to DCBL snd tell us, is it DCBLEGAL or their sidekicks the debt crawler pointless aggrsssive misleading letter specialists?

Thanks for the reply, 

So I’ll email dcb legal and ask them that, I couldn’t find the wording of Henderson v Henderson you have told me to send to them alongside this. 

fisherjim

Cp100 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Yep, no such firm as UKPL, so please confirm.

You must also say to DCBLegal (or is it only debt crawlers. DCB Ltd?) that they must consolidate the cases and explain how they think they can charge the false added £60 five times for a couple of letter threatograms that should be one case. 

Search the forum for Henderson v Henderson and use that wording to DCBL snd tell us, is it DCBLEGAL or their sidekicks the debt crawler pointless aggrsssive misleading letter specialists?

Thanks for the reply, 

So I’ll email dcb legal and ask them that, I couldn’t find the wording of Henderson v Henderson you have told me to send to them alongside this. 

It took me about 60 seconds to find this:

In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:
(i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence, or error;
(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.

D_P_Dance

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. Judges have dismissed an entire claim because this. Read this and complain to 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

Cp100

Ok, I need to email dcb legal before the 30 days are up. 

So in my email I shall ask for a breakdown of charges and question why they have increased the pcn amount? 

Also I should include this in the email? And suggest they drop the whole thing:

In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:
(i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence, or error;
(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.

 This is all new to me and I’m a newbie. 

Thanks for the help. 

Umkomaas

You still haven't told us who 'UKPL' are!

Cp100

Umkomaas said:

You still haven't told us who 'UKPL' are!

Sorry it’s uk parking control limited 

Coupon-mad

UKPC then.

You have all the advice now that you need, I think?  Please re-read what I said to include in the response to DCBLegal.  No need to ask again.