DCB Legal - Highview Parking Limited

patient_dream

There are points you need to understand

1:  the "can't pay we'll take it away" logo was just a rubbish TV show and is now defunct although you might see it when TV companies run out of ideas. This is just low class propaganda trying to scare people. It is childish

2: Suggesting you go to a solicitor ... another scary poor tactic.
REAL solicitors will not get involved in a scam and they certainly would not work for a grubby little £70 <<< the fake
The CAB are clueless

You don't need a solicitor or the CAB, this forum has the experience and time after time these legals are zapped. They either discontinue or get spanked in court

3: The 8% interest ???  as they they say it relates to the county courts act 1984 ?  38 years ago ?
Maybe DCBL can point you where nowadays anyone can get 8% ...... well, according to scam web sites and crypto currency, you can ????   but you will lose all your money
Most judges will say NO to this rubbish

4: And most judges will kick out the fake scam of £70 ... and it is scam, all started by the BPA in their code of practice

DCBL cannot explain the fake £70 .... they rely on a fairy tale introduced by the BPA ....... WHAT A TERRIBLE SCAM ?

Umkomaas

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

DCBL have the highest rate when it comes to claims being discontinued

Will the penny drop when they understand that the claims they issue are rubbish ..... talk about a scam, the penny has not yet dropped that it is the parking scammers who are scamming DCBL

IT'S WAKE UP TIME, Type DCBL into any search engine and it's all negative ...... 

Sadly DCBL with the parking industry are dealing with monopoly money and it's now like "Humpty Dumpty"

User84

patient_dream said:

There are points you need to understand

1:  the "can't pay we'll take it away" logo was just a rubbish TV show and is now defunct although you might see it when TV companies run out of ideas. This is just low class propaganda trying to scare people. It is childish

2: Suggesting you go to a solicitor ... another scary poor tactic.
REAL solicitors will not get involved in a scam and they certainly would not work for a grubby little £70 <<< the fake
The CAB are clueless

You don't need a solicitor or the CAB, this forum has the experience and time after time these legals are zapped. They either discontinue or get spanked in court

3: The 8% interest ???  as they they say it relates to the county courts act 1984 ?  38 years ago ?
Maybe DCBL can point you where nowadays anyone can get 8% ...... well, according to scam web sites and crypto currency, you can ????   but you will lose all your money
Most judges will say NO to this rubbish

4: And most judges will kick out the fake scam of £70 ... and it is scam, all started by the BPA in their code of practice

Unfortunately I have no experience dealing with these kind of scams but willing to go to court to defend as these parking invoices are absurd. 

1. It was crap
2. its not the "you might need to hire a solicitor" part that's scares me its the possibility of a CCJ over £70-£170. 
3. When I saw this 8% i was like really...
4. If the judge doesn't kick this out and forces me to pay I'll be glad I at least tried to fight this scam

Its just knowing what to do next after the first 2 emails (SAR and pre-action protocol) which Umkomaas has give me a link to read. As I see a lot of threads at this stage and not much else after.

Thanks for the encouragement 

Coupon-mad

Are they actually telling people that they might need to hire a solicitor?

User84

Coupon-mad said:

Are they actually telling people that they might need to hire a solicitor?

On my LoC second paragraph up they say "you you may wish to seek independent legal advice from a solicitor or other free money organisation" notice they have used "you" twice. So a formal letter has this gramatical error. I expect that on a forum not an "official" letter

Trainerman

User84 said:

patient_dream said:

There are points you need to understand

1:  the "can't pay we'll take it away" logo was just a rubbish TV show and is now defunct although you might see it when TV companies run out of ideas. This is just low class propaganda trying to scare people. It is childish

2: Suggesting you go to a solicitor ... another scary poor tactic.
REAL solicitors will not get involved in a scam and they certainly would not work for a grubby little £70 <<< the fake
The CAB are clueless

You don't need a solicitor or the CAB, this forum has the experience and time after time these legals are zapped. They either discontinue or get spanked in court

3: The 8% interest ???  as they they say it relates to the county courts act 1984 ?  38 years ago ?
Maybe DCBL can point you where nowadays anyone can get 8% ...... well, according to scam web sites and crypto currency, you can ????   but you will lose all your money
Most judges will say NO to this rubbish

4: And most judges will kick out the fake scam of £70 ... and it is scam, all started by the BPA in their code of practice

Unfortunately I have no experience dealing with these kind of scams but willing to go to court to defend as these parking invoices are absurd. 


2. its not the "you might need to hire a solicitor" part that's scares me its the possibility of a CCJ over £70-£170. 

Let's get rid of this one. Even if you lose at court, you will not get a CCJ recorded unless you fail to pay in time. No court loss, no CCJ. I know that the scammers try to intimidate you into believing otherwise, but it is all bull manure

User84

I thought i'd bring this post back. I've done the SAR and done the pre-action protocol with their solictors. 

The parking company have not provided PDT machine read out after asking 3 times, they keep giving me this response (cut and paste) with their first response in the 30 day time frame and the other 2 responses after the 30 days time limit.

"Please be advised that due to data protection we are only able to provide you with information relating to yourself. As such, we are unable to provide you with a record of payments as these do not relate to yourself.

We do not have a record of any payment made against this vehicle on the date in question."

I keep requesting along the lines of I'm requesting redacted data that may relate to myself and contain my VRM in a very specific time frame (I basically asked for the last paid redacted VRM before and after my alleged parking violation). Surely they would need to supply this information to their solictors to progress this to courts as evidence.

My question - The solicitors have now said the 30 days has seized inline with pre-action protocol payment is now due. Do i now wait to recieve the court summons or do I register to defend the potential court summons by filling out MCOL. I'm on "letter of claim", is there another letter that says "court summons" that arrives in 14 or 30 days? I know time scales are important when dealing with courts but just little unsure on the time scales

I'm trying to hold my nerve with this!

Thanks.

Fruitcake

You should be making complaints and gathering evidence at this stage whilst you wait for the court claim to arrive (it will not be a summons as it is a civil matter, not criminal) from the CCBC.

The claim form will tell you how to set up a Government Gateway and give you a password for MCOL. Make sure to keep that sort of thing secure.

Once you get involved with the courts it is important to ensure you use the correct terminology. Please don't think I am being picky. The law is a pedant, so you need to become one yourself.
I believe the word you wanted in your previous post was ceased, not seized. 

User84

Ok, that makes sense but unfortunately the only evidence i'm going ot be able to get is the PDT machine which I have been chasing, I won't have kept the pay and display ticket (tbh who does), the car park is no longer monitored by the parking company is now owned by my local council and all machines/signage have been removed. TBH it wasn't the signage thats the problem it was the pay and display machine from memory.

That's fine, the claim form doesn't tell me but I can follow it from the newbies section. It says about claim number and defence password will be sent in the post. This is is what makes me think i'm pre-empting registering because i dont have either of these and only the letter of claim but i do not want to miss deadlines.

I was seeing who would notice "seized" as this is written in my email from DCB Legal and no you're not being picky

Le_Kirk

User84 said:

Ok, that makes sense but unfortunately the only evidence i'm going ot be able to get is the PDT machine which I have been chasing, I won't have kept the pay and display ticket (tbh who does), the car park is no longer monitored by the parking company is now owned by my local council and all machines/signage have been removed. TBH it wasn't the signage thats the problem it was the pay and display machine from memory.

That's fine, the claim form doesn't tell me but I can follow it from the newbies section. It says about claim number and defence password will be sent in the post. This is is what makes me think i'm pre-empting registering because i dont have either of these and only the letter of claim but i do not want to miss deadlines.

I was seeing who would notice "seized" as this is written in my email from DCB Legal and no you're not being picky

Just goes to show how pathetic DCB Legal are; if they cannot select the correct words to use in a legal document ( a letter to you) what are they going to say to the judge in their POC on the claim form or witness statement.
In your defence (when/if you actually receive a N1 claim form) you "put the claimants to strict proof of" the issue regarding the PDT and missing VRMs and let them try to tell the judge he/she is not getting it!
Of course none of this can be done until you receive the N1.  You can register with the Government Gateway any time; it is the same gateway that people (including me) use for tax returns etc.

Fruitcake

It's always worth getting photos of the site and signage as it is now, and from Google Streetview if it has useful historic images from around or just before the alleged event so you can compare them with the ones the claimant uses in their evidence at a later date.
You might be surprised how often they don't match.