Letter of claim

Coupon-mad

JerzyB said:

DE_612183 said:

Do you know who lives at the address you gave?
Do you know what will happen once the letter from DCBL drop on the doormat?

Yes, I do.
They were going to write "no longer at this address" on the envelope and stick it in the post; 

That would be a terrible thing to do and could cause you to get a claim.

You are so nearly there with timing this out, don't ruin it...of course they don't return the letter.  Obviously they say nothing.

You know what you have to do on 17th November?

Johnersh

A parking charge notice was issued on 16/12/2016 for being "stopped in a prohibited area".

That's really unusual wording. What did the signage say. The subsequent correspondence is clearly wrong as it seems likely that there was no term of parking, so much as a prohibition.

I'm answer to the earlier question, the ppc could still pursue D as keeper on the basis that the transfer information was provided at a point in time at which D had actual knowledge that the third party (the driver) no longer resided there. Pofa refers to a *current* service address. Notably, and contrary to the usual suggestion of ppcs, there is nothing in pofa that requires the address to be one located in the jurisdiction of E&W. 

JerzyB

Coupon-mad said:

JerzyB said:

DE_612183 said:

Do you know who lives at the address you gave?
Do you know what will happen once the letter from DCBL drop on the doormat?

Yes, I do.
They were going to write "no longer at this address" on the envelope and stick it in the post; 

That would be a terrible thing to do and could cause you to get a claim.

You are so nearly there with timing this out, don't ruin it...of course they don't return the letter.  Obviously they say nothing.

You know what you have to do on 17th November?

OK...I have spoken to the resident at the address; he will just hang on to the letter and not send it back to DCBL.
With regards to 17th November: no, I still don't understand what I'm supposed to do to delay them past the 16th December. They have been very quick to respond to everything I've sent them, so I don't know how I'm supposed to delay them for the necessary month to get to the statute barred date.

Johnersh said:

A parking charge notice was issued on 16/12/2016 for being "stopped in a prohibited area".

That's really unusual wording. What did the signage say. The subsequent correspondence is clearly wrong as it seems likely that there was no term of parking, so much as a prohibition. 

I don't know what the signage said at the time of the incident; they have failed to provide me with contemporaneous images, and in all of the photos that they have sent me, none of the signs are clear enough to be read. They have sent me a sign but it's the current one; the prices on it are more than the ones on the original parking charge notice and subsequent letters they've sent me. The current sign is this, and it should be noted that it is not currently present at the exact place where the car was parked, nor is it present in the photos they've sent me of the car, though DCBL have sent me a photo from sometime between 2016 and now when there was one present on one of the bollards at the location:

Johnersh said:

Notably, and contrary to the usual suggestion of ppcs, there is nothing in pofa that requires the address to be one located in the jurisdiction of E&W. 

I'm sorry - what does this mean in plain English, Johnersh? 

Le_Kirk

That sign is clearly one that was used for production purposes and before purchase so it cannot possibly have been installed at the car park - see the word "PROOF" stamped across it! (unless you did that)

Coupon-mad

Please look back at the answers we've given in your thread.

I already said what needed to be kept till last, because it delays a claim by the magic 30 days.  We've advised you exactly how to play it.

JerzyB

Le_Kirk said:

That sign is clearly one that was used for production purposes and before purchase so it cannot possibly have been installed at the car park - see the word "PROOF" stamped across it! (unless you did that)

Yes, I know. It's probably the pdf file that they use to make the current signs. The point is that it's not the sign that was in use in 2016. 

JerzyB

The story so far...
The driver received the first letter from DCBL, asking him whether he was the driver on the night in question.
However, he didn't get to reply (by email) until a few days after the 14 quoted on the letter (he emailed them on 9th November); because of the mail strikes, it arrived late.
He sent them this:

Dear Madam or Sir, 

I write with regard to your letter dated 18th October 2022.  

Please be advised that your letter was delivered to me on Friday 4th November. 

I believe I was the driver on the night in question.  

Please send any further documentation to me at HIS CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS. 

Regards,
Mr X

Since then, he's had no reply other than the standard automated response from DCBL.
Should he chase them up, stating that he's not received any documentation in the post?
Or should he download, complete, and return the reply form via email? 
Obviously, if the latter, he will fill it out pretty much as I did originally, but - since it's now 18th November - the 30 days required by law will take the ticket into the land of the statute barred. As such, should he hold off with regards to telling them he's seeking debt advice, or fill the form in fully (excluding financial details)?
Most importantly, do you think DCBL will have fast tracked the case to court because he replied late?

Fruitcake

If the driver has told the claimant's solicitors that he believes he was the driver, he should now get a NTD through the post from the PPC, or possibly a LoC if UKPC decide to play billy suggers.
He must keep that auto response from DCBL safe.

Since you have not yet received a claim form, and you are now within 30 days of reaching the winning post you must now, today, send the 30-day hold instruction. This is irrespective of anything that the driver receives.

State that although you deny the debt you are seeking debt advice and require the case to be put on hold for 30 days as per pre-action protocol.

That gets YOU past the date when the case will become statute barred, at which point you tell them such and to cease and desist, but only on or after December the 17th.

If the driver gets a NTD, they should appeal to the PPC denying that they breached any parking terms and conditions and ask for a PoPLA code. If they receive a letter of/before claim, then The Driver must send the 30-day hold instruction.

Note that it is imperative that you send the 30 days hold instruction today by email and send it to yourself and take a screengrab.

Even if a claim form lands on your doormat today, it will not be deemed served until 5 days after the issue date on the letter from the county court business centre. This is why you must send the 30 days hold instruction before the date of service takes effect.

You are nearly there.

JerzyB

Fruitcake said:

Since you have not yet received a claim form, and you are now within 30 days of reaching the winning post you must now, today, send the 30-day hold instruction. This is irrespective of anything that the driver receives.

State that although you deny the debt you are seeking debt advice and require the case to be put on hold for 30 days as per pre-action protocol.

That gets YOU past the date when the case will become statute barred, at which point you tell them such and to cease and desist, but only on or after December the 17th.

Note that it is imperative that you send the 30 days hold instruction today by email and send it to yourself and take a screengrab.

I had already filled in the reply form and sent it back before I joined this forum; I filled in the bit about seeking debt advice and have already had a 30 day hold put on the case before I gave them the driver's details. Would I be correct in assuming that I can't do that again, or can I send in another reply form but state that this time I am seeking legal advice?

Fruitcake said:

If the driver has told the claimant's solicitors that he believes he was the driver, he should now get a NTD through the post from the PPC, or possibly a LoC if UKPC decide to play billy suggers.
He must keep that auto response from DCBL safe. 

If the driver gets a NTD, they should appeal to the PPC denying that they breached any parking terms and conditions and ask for a PoPLA code. If they receive a letter of/before claim, then The Driver must send the 30-day hold instruction.

If the driver receives any paperwork from DCBL, is the case still eligible to be statute barred after December 17th? If so, is it worth him downloading the reply form today and fully completing it, including the bit about seeking debt advice? That would take the case over the statute barred deadline, no? 

Fruitcake

I didn't realise you had already done a 30 day hold instruction. Have you received another letter of/before claim since you told them you were seeking debt advice, or have you only received the one?

What precisely has the driver received from DCBL. It should only be them asking him to confirm that he was the driver. He shouldn't have received a LoC unless a NTD was left on the vehicle at the material time of the alleged event.
I think all the driver needs to do is acknowledge that they believe they were the driver on the date of the alleged event in reply to the letter from DCBL, but it depends on exactly what they sent to the driver.

The case will be statute barred after six years have passed from the date of the alleged event provided no claim is issued before then. Your job is to stop the claim from happening.