DCB Legal & UKPC - Remnant PCN

IndigoMondayToyota

Good afternoon all,

I have come back with a new woe after several years hiatus from my previous ordeal (which I'd won because the case was discontinued):
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5470683/ukpc-county-court-claim-defence-and-process/p1

As detailed in page 5 (last post), I received one final invoice from our beloved UKPC before selling the car. This was 5-5.5 years ago.

Bringing me to today, and following on from the helpful Newbies Sticky, the 'DCBL letters ..... forum group thread', and reading many a posts in a similar position, I received the DCB Legal Letter of Claim and have started a new post...

Here are the order of events (will try to keep this updated):
(Date - Sender > Receiver - Summary)
Short Description of Events/Actions
Question

22/01 - DCBL Ltd. > IndigoMondayToyota (IMT) - Notice of Debt Recovery
- Letter received stating I have an unpaid PCN of £160
- I ignored this per the advice in the below thread - 1st post:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6237177/dcbl-letters-forum-group-thread/p1

12/02 - DCBL Ltd. > IMT - Final Reminder
- Again, ignored.

03/03 - IMT > Housing Association - PCN Complaint
- I sent an email complaint to the HA that we were previously with (since moved out) in March 2021, but this was promptly denied as I was not a 'named owner/tenant/leaseholder', and that I 'haven't raised the concerns within 6 months of the issue occurring'.

- I responded to say I was unsatisfied with their response and that I was a tenant at the time of contravention, and it wasn't pursued by UKPC until I moved out and change addresses. The policy they claim was unacceptable as it was raised at the time it occurred (a month after it took place). It somehow slipped through their cracks, and falls well within the remit of formally raising a complaint / incident. I insisted they cease and desist any pursual of the claim against me.

- They said they wanted to confirm whether I am now requesting to make a complaint about something that happened in 2016. So I confirm this, and say that when the initial complaint was raised in June 2016 the case hadn't gone to court, so it was presumed to be resolved (maybe even by the HA? not sure...)

- I asked if they wanted any further detail of the contravention to assist with logging/resolving the incident/complaint...so far no response.
Is this worth a follow-up to the HA? Should I also ask if they provide me the dates over the coming weeks/months to attend at a court hearing as a witness? (similar to my complaint to them those years ago).

15/03 - DCBL Ltd. > IMT - Final Notice of Debt Recovery
- Again, ignored.

27/08 - DCB Legal to IMT - Letter of Claim
- Given 30 days to respond to LOC, either by using their 'response' page on their website (no thanks).

20/09 - IMT > UKPC DPO - SAR Sent Off
- Asked for all info sent under my name/address/personal data
- All info under the VRN that was under my name at the time
- All other info held about me, inc from or to third parties

20/09 - IMT > DCB Legal - LOC Response
- Provided LOC reference, VRN, Amount, Date of contravention
- Stating I am seeking debt advice, but I deny any debt and the case be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017
- I have sent their client a SAR
- Signed, First & Last Name

21/09 - DCB Legal (Person 1) > IMT - Email Response
Subject: Our Ref: XXXXXXXXX / UKPC Limited vs IMT (Full Name, incl. Middle Name was provided here)
Dear IMT, (Full name was also provided here )
We write in your response to your email dated XXXXXXXX (no date provided...exactly how it appears...)
Please provide your reference (beginning in 'XX') to enable us to locate your case.

For data protection, please provide the following:
- Full Name (sure why not just plaster it all over this response if you needed it anyway!)
- First Line of address
- Postcode

22/09 - IMT > DCB Legal (Person 1) - Email Response
- I sent off the details they asked for. Nothing more. Nothing less.

23/09 - DCB Legal (Person 2) > IMT - More info needed
- Another person appears to have followed up on previous email email, asking to confirm my middle name. (even though it was in the Subject)

23/09 - IMT > DCB Legal (Person 2) - Response Provided
- I responded providing them this information

23/09 - DCB Legal (Person 2) > IMT - On Hold Confirmation Email
- Person 2 confirms that this matter is now on hold for 30 days from the date of my first email.
- After which, the matter will proceed as normal

24/09 - UKPC DPO > IMT - SAR Verification
- Requested to verify my identity before proceeding with request, by providing the following:
1) PCN Reference
2) Vehicle Log Book
3) Proof of Address
4) Photo ID

25/09 - IMT > UKPC DPO - SAR Verification Provided
- I have provided them only with a statement/bill to show I am the correct data subject showing Name and Address (other non-pertinent info redacted), PCN Reference, and that I refuse to supply photo ID. I have also demanded they send the SAR in hard copy format.

Questions:

1. Given its the exact same circumstances as before (just a remnant of the bulk claim all those years ago), if it ends up going to MCOL stage, etc. could I reuse the same defence points / arguments?
2. Has anything changed in terms of how I should approach things where I'm at right now, and the events proceeding this?
3. What other advice could you provide me to aid in my defence/arguments against UKPC/DCB Legal?

Notes:

- If the specificities of my email reveal too much to pin-point who I am IRL esp dates, then please let me know and I will change some info, etc.
- On the flip side, if you'd like any further detail, please do let me know.

Hopefully I haven't squandered on any of the above points, but feel free to let me know where to improve.

Thank you all, and hope you have a wonderful weekend!

IMT

KeithP

RE: your questions...

With your general questions, you are asking too much.

As you know, things change over time.
You also know that the NEWBIES thread contains everything you need to know.

If by chance you have a question that isn't answered in the NEWBIES thread, then of course do come back and ask that specific question here.

Coupon-mad

Questions
Given its the exact same circumstances as before (just a remnant of the bulk claim all those years ago), if it ends up going to MCOL stage, etc. could I reuse the same defence points / arguments
Has anything changed in terms of how I should approach things where I'm at right now, and the events proceeding this
What other advice could you provide me to aid in my defence/arguments against UKPC/DCB Legal?

You should be urgently sending DCBLegal the wording about Arnold v Westminster and Henderson v Henderson as seen in other threads, and telling them this claim is estopped under cause of action estoppel, because a previous claim number xxxxxx was brought and failed, about the exact same facts, simply PCNs with different dates.

Tell them the CPRs and courts expect a Claimant to advance their entire case as one claim, not split across several. This is not a new cause of action and a new claim about what is essentially part of the same thing as last time would be an abuse of process.

D_P_Dance

Have you complained to your MP?

IndigoMondayToyota

Thanks KeithP, DPD, CM - good to see you folks again!

CM - Thanks for that info - I've drafted an email to DCBLegal with all that information. The bit around 'previous claim number xxxxx' - are you referring to the reference that the previous solicitors used? Or all the previous PCN's that were tried against me?

DPD - Yes indeed, still awaiting their response.

Also, sent a follow-up email to my HA. We'll see which pebble ripples the farthest!

IMT

D_P_Dance

If the HA was a registered charity, consider also a complaint to HM Charity Commissioners.  Charities have no right to engage these scammers.

IndigoMondayToyota

Thanks DPD - Unfortunately they're not... they're considered a "charitable Registered Society" and therefore not required to register with the Charity Commission

Coupon-mad

I mean the previous court claim number of those other PCNs.  All should have been brought as a single claim at the time if the parking charges were easily identified to be about the same Defendant, car, location - i.e. matters of similar fact.

You will have emails from court with the older claim number on.

IndigoMondayToyota

Thanks CM - I have fired that email off. Let’s see what they come back with.

IndigoMondayToyota

Afternoon all,

Two minor updates!

Update 1
SAR received which contains:
- Notice to Keeper
- PCN Copy
- Final Reminder Letter
- Photos of vehicle

Will need to track down my old documents to see if they match what they claim was provided - will provide an update once found!

They also listed “Please note PDT data isn’t stored” - not sure what they’re referring to…

In the email they sent, they also mentioned about Data Sharing, and because how the PCN remains outstanding, data has been shared with Debt Recovery Plus Limited and DCBL (their debt recovery “agents”) - seems to be their blanket email from time ago (who they used previously with my other invoices) - no need to worry about this if they’re already using DCB Legal?

Update 2
Email to HA yielded a response:
“This isn’t a matter the Complaints Team would get involved in. This has been forwarded to XXXXXXXXXX and ask they get back to you with further advise. Please allow 5 working days for this” - This has passed that limit, and still no word back on the other team so will be following it up.

Still no update/response on the following:
- Letter to MP - will be chasing this!
- DCB Legal after the comment CM left 25/09 @ 15:08. Should should I follow up with this? They’re still in limit of the 30 days on-hold.

Please let me know on the questions / comments above.

Thanks all,
IMT

KeithP

IndigoMondayToyota said:

They also listed “Please note PDT data isn’t stored” - not sure what they’re referring to…

PDT usually refers to a Pay and Display Ticket machine.

It looks like they are saying that they have not bothered to keep any evidence of whether you bought a ticket or not.
What exactly is the allegation they are making?