Pcn's sent out by Dcb Legal

Tapluk3

Hi Redx thanks for that, the address is correct where they say they sent them, i never received them, today they again sent me copies showing they sent the pcns out on 2 different dates to my address, as you know we were'nt there on one of the dates, the second one says pcn issue date was 19/09/2016 and Ntk was sent on the 21/10/2016, we were home then and did not receive any such notice, i assume they are trying to put the frighteners on by saying " Abuse of process" will not stand up in court, i have read several cases today where it says several judges have have dismissed cases because of abuse of process

Redx

Tapluk3 said:

Hi Redx thanks for that, the address is correct where they say they sent them, i never received them, today they again sent me copies showing they sent the pcns out on 2 different dates to my address, as you know we were'nt there on one of the dates, the second one says pcn issue date was 19/09/2016 and Ntk was sent on the 21/10/2016, we were home then and did not receive any such notice, i assume they are trying to put the frighteners on by saying " Abuse of process" will not stand up in court, i have read several cases today where it says several judges have have dismissed cases because of abuse of process

Yep , now you are getting it , knowing the score , seeing the overall true picture in this saga 😁😁👍👍

Coupon-mad

The Semark-Jullien case means nothing at all.

Tapluk3

As Redx explained about proof of postage, i have just sent a request through Rightly to Ukpc asking for proof of postage for the 4 dates they say they sent letters to my address, i stated to them i never received 1 letter let alone 4!!! I sent them a copy of my 2 proof of postage i obtained from the post office for the N180 forms i sent to the county court and dcb incase they didn't know what they look like,lol!!!

Tapluk3

Also i was annoyed that Dcb sent that mail to me saying they hold me responsible as the registered keeper ( that i cannot argue about) but i took that as a threatening letter as they put Abuse Of Process will not stand up in a court of law, so in other words pay up!!! Yeah right!!! Then the idiots stated look at Semark-Julien which coupon-mad stated means nothing at all, so i did a bit of simple homework, without even digging too deep i found TEN cases where the defendants had abuse of process and spurious claims thrown out of court, so where do these idiots get their facts from that you won't  win using abuse of process or spurious claims?? From scaremongering people i presume!!! Well it aint gonna work with me!!!

Redx

You have gone from an uninformed newbie to knowing nearly as much as the regular posters on here

Amazing how they don't change the templates and remove the Ficional guff !😁😁😁

patient_dream

Tapluk3 said:

Also i was annoyed that Dcb sent that mail to me saying they hold me responsible as the registered keeper ( that i cannot argue about) but i took that as a threatening letter as they put Abuse Of Process will not stand up in a court of law, so in other words pay up!!! Yeah right!!! Then the idiots stated look at Semark-Julien which coupon-mad stated means nothing at all, so i did a bit of simple homework, without even digging too deep i found TEN cases where the defendants had abuse of process and spurious claims thrown out of court, so where do these idiots get their facts from that you won't  win using abuse of process or spurious claims?? From scaremongering people i presume!!! Well it aint gonna work with me!!!

The language DCBL use recently is fast becoming desperation language. I assume you understand the Semark-Julien case.

In brief, BWLegal appealed on the basis that judges were dismissing cases as abuse of process without ado ?   The appeal judge said this was wrong as they must hear the case and not just strike it out for abuse of process  ......... that is why the Semark-Julien case  means nothing and in reality, abuse of process is still very much alive but these three words are no longer used to describe the fake add-ons.  The fake add-ons are now well covered in court by the courts own rules called DOUBLE RECOVERY and that in turn is abuse of process, in other words they are abusing the courts rules

It is worth noting that it was not this forum who said abuse of process. It came about when a judge in Southampton struck out a case for abuse of process.   Semark-Julien progessed from this. And. the Semark-Julien case did not say a judge could not strike out the case if there was a feeble attempt of DOUBLE RECOVERY

As in a Morecambe and Wise sketch when Eric said .. "I'm playing all the right notes but not in the right order"

This is you and you must get all the facts in the right order for a judge to understand

Tapluk3

Thankyou guys for your comments, appreciate that, yes i do understand what is said about getting facts right, i didnt mean to put them in any order, i just picked them up as i went along just to show on here that Dcb are not correct to say " Abuse of process" cannot be used or as is now known as Double Recovery. Love the Morecambe and Wise bit though, and i will when have to do a WS later on in this saga make sure i get everything right with the help of this group, thankyou. In the early hours of this morning i sent a mail to Ukpc requesting proof of posting the said 4 letters they say were sent out (which i did not receive) i did this purposely as i hope i got it right from Redx saying proof of postage, as i explained when i sent N180 forms to county court and dcb i asked for a receipt as proof of postage from the post office and sent copies to dcb to show them i had sent forms incase further down the line they say they did not receive any such form. So if this dragged on like the 5 years 4 months it took ukpc to contact me via Dcb even after 5 years i will always have proof i sent those forms!!! Not as it seems as Ukpc have done, they have replied already and DO NOT HAVE any proof of postage!!!  Just their word saying 4 letters were sent out with " COPY" printed across them that they sent me when i requested SAR  as told to do by the guys on here, here is a copy of their reply they sent back to me earlier, i must say they are very efficient with their quick replies,lol, think i might be annoying them a bit,lol

Tapluk3

I also notice Ukpc now class the said alleged pcns they say were committed by my vehicle as "PARKING OFFENCES" in the mail above they sent to me earlier, i did'nt realise Pcns have now become " OFFENCES" 

Umkomaas

I wouldn't be overly anticipatory on the 'Abuse of Process' front (per se), in having the whole case dismissed. A 'Double Recovery' argument could see off any spurious additional charges, but for the past few months, complete case dismissals on AoP arguments have been very sparse. Things change rapidly in this game and a blind reliance on old county court judgments is not recommended.