UKPC ~ DCBL LETTER BEFORE CLAIM.

patient_dream

DCBL are fast becoming a huge joke, if not already.

They have added a fake £60 charge and thet need to tell you of their legal authority to do so.
Their feeble excuse will be that "code of practice" allows the PPC to do this. BUT, the code was written by an unregulated  entity and it is certainly does not carry any legal authority.

DCBL are attempting to mislead you and any court and it is a feeble attempt of double recovery

As said, the sign is of a forbidding in nature, BUT THERE IS A BIG CLUE HERE

The claim is that you accepted a contract for parking can only rely on the sign ?
Now look at the ticket info. ......

PART 2: LATE OR NON PAYMENT
Only there does it state a £60 debt collection charge ?   
CAN YOU SEE THOSE 10 LINES ON THE SIGN ..... Of course not and even if you can, the sign is unreadable

The ticket is not a contract, it's just an invoice 

So the question is why a legal like DCBL adds a fake charge. Could it just be a school boy error or as said, a feeble attempt to confuse a judge to extort money.   A judge can decide this

D_P_Dance

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and 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%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/

Fruitcake

The judge in the Jopson case stated that picking up/dropping off, or attending to some small vicissitude is not parking.

It is irrelevant whether the driver was a resident/tenant. The main point of the judgment is that the driver was delivering/collecting, thus the vehicle was not parked.

This was an appeal court case so is persuasive on the lower courts.

Fruitcake

gavino76 said:

the location was callow court, chelmsford.
i have read, and re-read, most of the intro, newbies, and then read it again. its tricky. its like reading russian 
the driver was dropping something off.

No GSV images since this one was taken in 2014, but you should aver that there were no entrance signs in 2018 anyway and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true.

17 Seymour St - Google Maps

Even if you can't get a copy of the lease of the resident for which the driver was making a delivery, you should still quote primacy of contract. The resident no doubt had a right to park, and a right to quiet enjoyment, and a right to have items delivered. 

A lease/tenancy agreement prohibiting delivery vehicles from parking would be unreasonable and an unfair contract term. You should therefore aver that the driver was acting as an agent of the resident and therefore had a demised right to stop in order to unload goods.

gavino76

its been a few years since i had a tangle with parking eye and civil enforcement that dragged on and on. it really is stressful. if i , and many others, didn't have you guys to turn to, well, it would be a nightmare. i just want to say thanks to all of you for taking your time to reply.

so, there is nothing that can be done, other than wait for the county court claim to come through right?
someone has mentioned a CPR 31.14 to dcbl?

gavino76

also, since 2018, callow court have installed a large automatic sliding gate for tenants only. the driver was making a delivery, will the driver have to admit, being the driver?

Coupon-mad

The defendant should admit to driving (in this case) because it's an honest witness position and your case depends on a statement that you were unloading to a tenant and were clearly authorised (authority: Jopson v Homeguard on Appeal).

Umkomaas

gavino76 said:

also, since 2018, callow court have installed a large automatic sliding gate for tenants only. the driver was making a delivery, will the driver have to admit, being the driver?

If the PPCs NtK was PoFA compliant there is no benefit to not revealing the driver's identity. 

gavino76

would someone please tell me if this acceptable to send to dcbl (with personal details to add) for CPR 31.14?

Date

Claimants name
Claimants address
Claimants postcode

Dear Sirs,

Claim Number: XXXXXX

Request for documents mentioned in a statement of case under CPR 31.14

On xx/xx/xxxx I received a County Court claim from yourselves of which I have acknowledged receipt indicating my intention to defend in full.

To enable me to file my defence and/or counterclaim, I require inspection of documents you mention in your statement of case ahead of filing my defence onxx/xx/xxxx.

1. Agreement / Contract
2. Default Notice
3. Notice of Assignment

In accordance with CPR 31.15(c) I undertake to be responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying with this CPR 31.14 request.

You should note that this claim has not yet been allocated to a specific track and the provisions of CPR 27(2) are of no effect. Had your claim not been issued through CCBC the Claimant would have been obliged to attach copies of the documentation upon which it relies to the Particulars of Claim.

I, as Defendant, am entitled to see the documents on which the Claimant relies and which you must produce at trial. Disclosure at this stage will enable me to fully plead my case and further the Overriding Objective.

You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the document(s) I have requested are copied to and received by me within 7 days of receiving this letter.

If you require more time in which to comply with this request you must tell me in writing and confirm your agreement to an extension of the time allowed for me to file my defence as allowed under CPR 15.5 so I may notify the court.

For your information and records I enclose a copy of the formal request for a copy of the credit agreement relating to this claim, pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which has been posted to your client with the statutory fee of £1 today, xx/xx/xxxx.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Your Name

KeithP

Have you received a County Court Claim then?

In the first sentence of that letter you state...

On xx/xx/xxxx I received a County Court claim from yourselves of which I have acknowledged receipt indicating my intention to defend in full.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.