Ccbc claim help needed for defence.

Le_Kirk

We note you have asked for your case to be put on hold for 30 days whilst you seek debt advice. This was actioned straight away and will sieze as of 01/10/2022. On which date you will need to either pay or advise of your proposals. 

Did they actually put this?

Umkomaas

I thought I'd draw your attention to this fairly recent thread which you might have missed. You must keep going through all the necessary court procedure phases, but the hope is that your case will follow the same pattern of all those detailed in the thread.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

Please be aware, this is not a reason to be complacent or 'down tools' on it, you must keep going through all the required phases.  If you don't, this won't go away and you'll inevitably end up with a CCJ.

Keep going!

Sasanova

Le_Kirk said:

We note you have asked for your case to be put on hold for 30 days whilst you seek debt advice. This was actioned straight away and will sieze as of 01/10/2022. On which date you will need to either pay or advise of your proposals. 

Did they actually put this?

Sorry for the late reply I’ve not been well, in answer to your question yes this is what they sent me and I copied pasted on here their actual email.

Sasanova

Umkomaas said:

I thought I'd draw your attention to this fairly recent thread which you might have missed. You must keep going through all the necessary court procedure phases, but the hope is that your case will follow the same pattern of all those detailed in the thread.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

Please be aware, this is not a reason to be complacent or 'down tools' on it, you must keep going through all the required phases.  If you don't, this won't go away and you'll inevitably end up with a CCJ.

Keep going!

Thank you for this useful thread really appreciate your advice.🙏🏻

Le_Kirk

Sasanova said:

Le_Kirk said:

We note you have asked for your case to be put on hold for 30 days whilst you seek debt advice. This was actioned straight away and will sieze as of 01/10/2022. On which date you will need to either pay or advise of your proposals. 

Did they actually put this?

Sorry for the late reply I’ve not been well, in answer to your question yes this is what they sent me and I copied pasted on here their actual email.

...............which just shows the level of people with whom you are dealing!

Sasanova

Hi everyone as you are aware I have 3 tickets from UKPC which one is going to my local county court still waiting for the date to be set then I received LBC for the 2nd one in August which I asked for 30 day extension however after the 30 days was over I received a fresh LBC but this time dcblegal have included the third remaining ticket in it unde the reference number of the previous letter!!! Is that the norm? I have 4 to 5 days before the deadline to respond. For the past 4 years they have been hounding me for the 3 tickets separately so what’s changed?

Coupon-mad

They've identified the link (same data subject and car) and consolidated two of them, which is correct, in fact all three should have been within this claim.

Just respond robustly to the LBC and state that they should have consolidated all three earlier, and remind them that there is already a live court claim relating to a matter that duplicates these PCNs, in all but issue date.  As such, any attempt to issue another claim would be a flagrant abuse of the court process and against the legal principle of 'cause of action estoppel' (authority: Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313) which is trite law and was a decision which confirmed that a party may not raise any claim in subsequent litigation which they ought properly to have raised in a previous action.

Sasanova

Coupon-mad said:

They've identified the link (same data subject and car) and consolidated two of them, which is correct, in fact all three should have been within this claim.

Just respond robustly to the LBC and state that they should have consolidated all three earlier, and remind them that there is already a live court claim relating to a matter that duplicates these PCNs, in all but issue date.  As such, any attempt to issue another claim would be a flagrant abuse of the court process and against the legal principle of 'cause of action estoppel' (authority: Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313) which is trite law and was a decision which confirmed that a party may not raise any claim in subsequent litigation which they ought properly to have raised in a previous action.

I certainly will do that Thank  you for your guidance much appreciate it 🙏🏻

Sasanova

Hi there I sent my response to the LBC, I used the advice from Coupon-mad hope it’s ok I’ve pasted a copy below:
I dispute any debt to UKPC,

Inadequate signage the signage inside the car park not legible from inside the car while driving due to the size of the font no signs at the entrance at the time, smaller signs on the wall, it is not acceptable to expect a motorist to be able to read this before entering the claimant must have been made aware of this because a month later they put up a sign post at the point of entry.

.

By reason of the matters aforesaid I have been obliged to deal with unjustified and aggressive correspondence from your clients and their agents which has relentlessly arrived at my family home for over 4 years. Throughout, the parking firm and their agents have duplicated each letter, doubling the distress, despite their DPO knowing that three exact match' (save from dates) cases are being exploited, with me as the single data subject.  As a Litigant in Person I have suffered substantial damage and distress, causing sleepless nights, headaches and extreme worry.  I consider myself a robust person but I am only human and will attest to the severe effect on my peace of mind, on oath if required by the Judge.  Your clients are the cause of enormous anxiety for me and my family, especially given the current economic situation where people are more vulnerable.

Until I sought advice about the issues and was assisted to write this substantive reply, my family initially believed that bailiffs were about to arrive and we were scared by DCBL's letters.  I was seriously upset by what has been painted as if it is a credible threat to my possessions, credit rating and the family home.  It is even more alarming that the DCBL letters were timed by you or your client's deliberate actions, to arrive during the pandemic lockdown .I am certain that most people would have succumbed to the crippling pressure DCBL exert, and paid to avoid bailiffs.  If the bullying and misleading conduct aimed at me regarding these three PCNs is an example of what your clients and DCBLegal do every day, then sanctions by the various authorities are long overdue.

Your clients must take stock of their position and cease immediately and/or deal properly with the dispute.   I expect an apology at the very least but given the fact that your client has already chosen to file a claim, they are estopped from filing more of the same.  If your clients ignore this fair warning, I will file a counterclaim this time, as well as a robust defence and will also pursue my entire costs pursuant to Part 27.14(2)(g) of the Civil Procedure Rules due to their wholly unreasonable conduct.

Out of the three PCN’s one is going to the county court awaiting for the date to be set.

These  three PCN’s should have all been consolidated in to one from the beginning now there’s already a live court claim relating to a matter that duplicates these PCN’s, in all but issue date.

As such any attempt to issue another claim would be a flagrant abuse of the court process and against the legal principle of ‘cause of action estoppel’(authority:Henderson v Henderson(1843) 3 Hare 100,67 ER313) which is trite law and was a decision which confirmed that a party may not raise any claim in subsequent litigation which they ought properly to have raised in a previous action.

Coupon-mad

Yep, that'll make them think.

I do like a robust response to any roboclaim thugs that cling limpet-like to this rogue industry!