Dcb legal letter of claim

Mfit

Newbie here, and have very little knowledge on the next steps for me to take, and have tried to read through others but I don’t understand the short hand term names that I’ve read, so if someone could really explain to me I would really appreciate it.  I parked in a free car park and was there shopping for over the time allowed, didn’t realise there was a time limit. I have since received numerous letters, stating I owe £170, I have not made contact at all. Please can someone help me on my next steps. Thank you so much 

Trainerman

By how long are you alleged to be over? Anyway, follow the Newbies. Second post:-  if you get a letter before claim. Follow the instructions about a subject access request (to the parking company) and deny liability but 30 day debt hold to solicitors.

Coupon-mad

Exact same advice as this one today:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79022134#Comment_79022134

...and I explain there where the 'common acronyms' list is, plus what a SAR looks like and what it is.

patient_dream

The problem DCBL have is that they rely upon the BPA code of practice that tells parking companies they can add fake charges known as "debt collector" add-ons

The BPA is an unregulated members club which simple means they have no legal  authority to add anything ?  

The problem is that the BPA listened to the cloud dreaming MD of ZZPS, who is one of debt collectors that fake the motorist.
The MD of ZZPS is on the board of the BPA ????   What does it tell you about the BPA ?
A COMPLETE JOKE is the answer

The new code of practice has BANNED these fake add-ons. If you actually end up in a court claim, the judge must be made aware.

WHY A NEW CODE OF PRACTICE ?
Because the BPA failed to control it's members and to tell their members to add fake charges ..... they themselves must carry the blame for the devastation that the parking companies will now suffer and that includes IPC members

This means that DCBL must prove the add-om has legal authority 

houndsoflove

DCBL should be easy to defeat if you follow the steps set out in the newbies thread.

They churn out standard rinse and repeat witness statements, often littered with mistakes (despite claiming you are wasting time by using a widely available defence and witness statement off the internet 😃).  If they or the private parking firm don’t fold before the court date you will come up against a rep who will make you think of changing your career as you will know more than them if you do your research properly. 👍🏻

Mfit

Thanks so much for the advice, where do I find the newbies thread? Sorry I’m new to the site and am struggling to navigate my way around thank you again for taking the time to respond x 

D_P_Dance

 I have since received numerous letters, stating I owe £170, 

You owe nothing unless they take you to court for breach of contract, win, ands a judge orders you to pay them.  

However, they have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount of £70 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 Excel v Wilkinson.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 this,

"Abuse of process – the quantum

13. In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum of £60 that is disingenuously described variously as 'debt collection costs', ‘additional charges levied to cover the cost of recovery’, ‘additional administration costs’, ‘debt recovery costs’, ‘initial legal costs’ and ‘recovery costs’. The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020 (the transcript of which is exhibit XX-04). The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued."

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, 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/

Coupon-mad

Mfit said:

Thanks so much for the advice, where do I find the newbies thread? Sorry I’m new to the site and am struggling to navigate my way around thank you again for taking the time to respond x 

Re-read my signature.  No complicated navigation involved.  2 clicks.

Mfit

So I have submitted an SAR and have had a reply, but not sure what to do now, I have also noticed an error, it says, ‘the recorded duration of the stay was 3 hours 36 minutes which is in excess of the maximum stay time of 0 hours and 0 minutes’ so technically, done nothing wrong? If anyone has any advice what to from here thanks 

Mfit

So I have submitted an SAR and have had a reply, but not sure what to do now, I have also noticed an error, it says, ‘the recorded duration of the stay was 3 hours 36 minutes which is in excess of the maximum stay time of 0 hours and 0 minutes’ so technically, done nothing wrong? If anyone has any advice what to from here thanks 

KeithP

Mfit said:

...it says, ‘the recorded duration of the stay was 3 hours 36 minutes which is in excess of the maximum stay time of 0 hours and 0 minutes’ so technically, done nothing wrong?

Doesn't that mean that you were allowed to park there for '0 hours and 0 minutes', i.e. no time at all.
In other words, you weren't allowed to park there at all?

Were you parked there outside the shop opening hours?