DCB Legal - Letter of Claim - multiple pcn's

nomoredebt

Hi @patient_dream they are.

Tonight he has got another letter of claim for another x11 pcn's £1760 this one.
He is going do the same as the previous LOC and and email UKPC to get the info they hold on him.

I am very worried, not only because of the obvious financial implications but his mental health as well.

patient_dream

nomoredebt said:

Hi @patient_dream they are.

Tonight he has got another letter of claim for another x11 pcn's £1760 this one.
He is going do the same as the previous LOC and and email UKPC to get the info they hold on him.

I am very worried, not only because of the obvious financial implications but his mental health as well.

Tell me, who are you in relation to him

KeithP

patient_dream said:

nomoredebt said:

Hi @patient_dream they are.

Tonight he has got another letter of claim for another x11 pcn's £1760 this one.
He is going do the same as the previous LOC and and email UKPC to get the info they hold on him.

I am very worried, not only because of the obvious financial implications but his mental health as well.

Tell me, who are you in relation to him

In the opening post we were told...

nomoredebt said:

Hi, between 2017-2019 my husband received numerous parking charges...

patient_dream

KeithP said:

patient_dream said:

nomoredebt said:

Hi @patient_dream they are.

Tonight he has got another letter of claim for another x11 pcn's £1760 this one.
He is going do the same as the previous LOC and and email UKPC to get the info they hold on him.

I am very worried, not only because of the obvious financial implications but his mental health as well.

Tell me, who are you in relation to him

In the opening post we were told...

nomoredebt said:

Hi, between 2017-2019 my husband received numerous parking charges...

Just like you dear boy, I do not always read the full thread
You saved me doing that ?

Now I know

patient_dream

nomoredebt said:

Hi @patient_dream they are.

Tonight he has got another letter of claim for another x11 pcn's £1760 this one.
He is going do the same as the previous LOC and and email UKPC to get the info they hold on him.

I am very worried, not only because of the obvious financial implications but his mental health as well.

And of course the letter is from DCBL, the famous DISCONTINUE outfit who adds FAKE chaarges which you do not, and lies to the court it is true ????

UKPC are employed to manage a car park .... UKPC fail in this all around the UK

If UKPC were professionals in managaing a car park (which they are not) they should be asking why your husband is receiving so many tickets.   They won't simply because every ticket is MONEY and UKPC are knowingly attacking this vehicle

Doubt DCBL understand this, which is why  they end they chicken out

You have a further 11 SAR's to send to UKPC. A simple copy and paste changing the PCN numbrt

UKPC... NOW IN THE HANDS OF DCBL .... well, easy to beat

nomoredebt

Hi @patient_dream, thank you for that, I hope so in this case.

Coupon-mad

Send them this (below and continuing on the second reply) to:

info@dcblegal.co.uk

and copy in

rebecca@dcblegal.co.uk

Even though she's a female solicitor, use the start 'Dear Sirs' as that's the accepted salutation for a firm of solicitors.

Obviously also add their refs from both the LBCs to the title, and the CLAIM NUMBER of the one that he paid where shown: 

Dear Sirs,  

Your client:  UK Parking Control Ltd

Pre-action/recovery letters x 2 - refs xxxxxxx and xxxxxxx

I refer to DCBL's two (pretty much duplicate facts) letters sent under the above two references.

I dispute that there is any debt owed to UKPC Ltd.  The matter of litigation under this particular cause of action of parking charges at this McDonalds location is settled already.

You/they had their chance when you filed a claim last month; as a firm of solicitors you will know that it was incumbent upon you to bring the entire case at that time.

I realise the fact that I paid that one (Claim number xxxxxxxx) in order to end the litigation has probably excited you and your client to add me to a 'mugs list' which explains your undue haste to split up more PCNs into two more separate 'cases' (both adding the extortionate +£70 per PCN that fuels the DCB Legal 'bulk litigation juggernaut').

However, you've shot yourselves in the foot.

Due to the paid claim, the litigation is now already settled and cannot be repeated.

Regardless of dates of parking charges, the facts are exactly the same and all parking charges deemed outstanding should have been incorporated in the earlier claim.  New allegations about matters of the same fact now raised in new claims, in order to try to achieve maximum fees/costs and more unjust enrichment for DCB and UKPC, is a clear abuse of the court system.

Cause of Action estoppel

DCBLegal's solicitor will be aware that by detaching (or allowing to remain detached) elements of alleged debt - or series of alleged debts - and issuing separate claims, each which rely upon essentially duplicate particulars and facts, is an abuse of the civil litigation process.  The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantuially the same as another filed by the same claimant.

Should you or your client subsequently file another claim (or several), I will apply for the second & subsequent actions to be struck out, with my full costs being borne by your client, UKPC Ltd.  

In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”

In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:

(i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence, or error;
(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.

There has been no reasonable diligence exhibited in this case by you or your ex-clamper clients.  UKPC Ltd were well aware all along, that there was more than one Parking Charge relating to my vehicle and these were passed to you in a batch at litigation stage.  You should have spotted this duplication at the time of discussing and contemplating the earlier claim and could have consolidated them.  The fact that you didn't, just shows the lack of human checks within your bulk litigation model.

Thus far, DCBL Group has (negligently or otherwise) failed to meet the rules about debt recovery and the pre-action phase.  I was completely confused by the bombardment of letters this year. Litigation or not litigation?  No reasonable person could have known what the nature of DCBL's business and status of the case was, from the letters I received from DCB Ltd and DCB Legal this year.

The author of the earlier DCB Ltd letters obviously intended for their words to act in terrorem of the recipient by mimicking a pre-action Letter before Claim or perhaps a bailiff warrant.  I conclude that your solicitors cannot have properly checked or overseen these letters and I hereby give you fair warning that DCBLegal must surely take immediate steps to review and amend these letter templates and stop DCB Group staff from sending such malicious communications to myself, or to other consumers in future.

My entire letter chain of threatograms received from DCB Ltd and Legal have been handed to a contact on moneysavingexpert forum that she may, at her discretion, use as a Case Study for the DLUHC and for BBC's Watchdog. Given your firm's domination of the bulk litigation model that drives this rogue market, it is safe to say that the Government is likely to be scrutinising your actions.  And the upcoming piece on Watchdog will be perfect timing, whether they use my case or not.

If the bullying and misleading conduct aimed at me regarding these PCNs is an example of what UKPC Ltd and DCBLegal do every day, then sanctions by the various authorities are long overdue.

Misleading letters - to be reported to the SRA

I am contacting DCBLegal by email rather than telephoning the '24hr payment line' or fruitlessly logging onto your website, which only provides me with a single option to pay, and not to dispute the alleged debt.

I am shocked and alarmed by what can only be described as misleading codswallop being issued in the DCB Group name and I remind you of the severe SRA and FCA sanctions implications, should DCB Group continue to ply your trade in this manner.

It is my belief that the conduct of robo-claim solicitors in parking cases breaches the Standards and Regulations (StaRs) and seriously affects public confidence in the profession.

I will now add to the SRA's DCBLegal complaint file that I am convinced must exist.  It has been completely (deliberately?) unclear which arm of the DCBL group are responsible for these abusive letters, which have all included the misleading word 'Bailiffs' in bold, and even carry the 'Can't Pay? We'll take it Away' words and logo.

This despite the clear and obvious fact that it is not possible for bailiffs to be sent before a court claim and you can't just ''take it away'' if a person chooses not to make the disproportionately enhanced payment that you say must be made to prevent court action (again).  That appears to me to be misleading and malicious and there is no excuse. DCBL cannot be heard to say ''it's our company name'' because misleading names that impersonate a level of (bailiff) authority the writer does not have, are banned by the FCA.

Until you decided to try this series of court claims just before Christmas, your letters were quite reasonably ignored by me, due to bearing all the hallmarks of scam mail.

Being a busy and law-abiding person with a family and more important things to think about, when I actually received a court claim from you/UKPC about the parking charges at McDonald's, I paid it (without admitting any liability) and thus the litigation involving me and the UKPC parking charges is over.

Harassing claptrap like the letters I have been subjected to, is precisely why the StaRs, the pre-action protocols and FCA Consumer Credit Sourcebook exist.  I require DCBL to cease and desist from sending me alarmist and unwarranted communications and note that the alleged further debt (i.e. all subsequent claims regarding parking charges at McDonalds) is disputed and entirely denied.

Be advised that I have reported DCBLegal to the Solicitors' Regulation Authority because these 'CCJ/bailiff threat' letters are a clear abuse, in that they failed to:

(a). advance your client's whole case in one single, compliant Letter before Claim appending a copy of the contract (the sign) they are relying upon;

(b). break down the unconscionable sum of £160/£170 per PCN, no doubt because it constitutes double recovery and DCBL hope I am unaware of this and the fact that the Government intends to ban this 'extortion';

(c). pay regard to the wording and enclosures needed for Letters before Claim, as required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims;

(d). attach the Reply forms required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims;

The relevant Protocol can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf  

Regardless, that ship has sailed due to the first claim, which I have settled already.  In terms of their full case and any other parking charges, because UKPC failed to 'put up' this is their/your omission in that first claim and they must now shut up.

Any debt is disputed & denied and I am considered vulnerable due to my mental health issues. DCB Legal is exacerbating my condition
You have already been informed of my mental health condition and vulnerability but if you want more evidence, please ask.

As a Litigant in Person I have suffered substantial damage and distress, causing sleepless nights, headaches and extreme worry.  I am only human and will attest to the severe effect on my peace of mind, on oath if required by the Judge if you drag me to court. Your clients are the cause of enormous anxiety for myself and my wife and you are ruining Christmas for us right now.  

Until I sought advice about the issues and was assisted by a layperson 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.  I am certain that most people would have succumbed to the crippling pressure DCBL exert, and paid to avoid bailiffs (as I did with that first claim). 

Breach of debt collection rules - complaint to the FCA about DCBL

I draw your attention to the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) Consumer Credit sourcebook which your staff can read here (May 2020 source 50):

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/CONC.pdf 

 

...which includes mandatory principles including those I have quoted below.  It is noted that DCB Group's various threatogram letters this year say that you are regulated by the FCA and your online 'payment portal' offers payments by instalments (i.e. you offer credit on behalf of clients).  Therefore it is my position that your conduct is bound by the Sourcebook rules. As an FCA member (if DCBL in fact are), you have breached the basic 'clear fair and not misleading' rule and the general requirements:

Principle 7 ''a firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading'';  

Duty not to use misleading names:

''A firm must not carry on a credit-related regulated activity under a name which is likely to mislead customers about the status of the firm or the nature of its business, or in any other way. [Note: section 25(1AD) of CCA]''.  2.2.3. 

(1) ''In relation to CONC 2.2.3 R, an example of where a name may mislead is if the average customer of the firm is likely to be misled by the name of the firm.

 (2) Examples of the matters concerning a firm's status or the nature of its business about which its name may mislead customers include: 

(a) the identity or nature of the firm;  

(b) its commercial or profit-seeking status; 

(c) its role, including any relationship with any other person; 

(d) the extent of its authority; 

(e) stating or implying that the firm is a public body or that it is related or connected in some way to a charitable, not-for-profit or governmental or local governmental organisation or to the courts; 

(f) the nature of the products or services supplied; 

(g) the cost of those products or services; and 

(h) the scale of the business including its geographical scope. 

(3) A firm which operates under a variety of trading names should take particular care to ensure that customers are not misled as to the identity of the firm, or the nature or scale of the firm’s business''.  2.2.4.   

"A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt has been settled or is disputed and must not continue to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid." 7.5.3

"A firm must suspend any steps it takes or its agent takes in the recovery of a debt from a customer where the customer disputes the debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds." 7.14.1

"Where a customer disputes a debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds, the firm must investigate the dispute and provide details of the debt to the customer in a timely manner." 7.14.3

If you do not stop your activity whilst investigating my dispute, then DCBL will be in further breach of the FCA's rules.  Bear in mind I am sending a formal complaint to the SRA and FCA about DCBL in any case, so this email is a final chance for you and UKKC Ltd to avoid digging a deeper hole.

  

  

Coupon-mad

In all the premises, the conduct of UKPC Ltd and their agents amounts to harassment under section 1 of the PFHA.  It is pertinent to adduce the authorities of:

(i) Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd  [2009] EWCA Civ 46

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html 

where Sedley LJ held: 

[52] ''...For my part I would draw attention to the fact [...] that harassment is a crime as well as a tort. Contrary to what was more than once suggested, this does not modify in any way the constituents of the wrong. 

[53] Parliament's intention in passing the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was to criminalise the kind of serious and persistent unwarranted threat which is alleged here, giving a right of civil action as a fallback. In this situation it ought not to be left to hardy individuals to put their savings and homes at risk by suing. The primary responsibility should rest upon local public authorities which possess the means and the statutory powers to bring alleged harassers, however impersonal and powerful, before the local justices.''

and 

(ii) Harrison v Link Financial Ltd [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html 

  

where HHJ Chambers QC concluded at [83]:

''Cumulatively and damningly is what I find to be the way that MBNA and the Defendant went about recovering their debt. [...] It seems to me that such conduct has no proper function in the recovery of consumer debt. Whatever the strength of the suggestion that the courts should only be a last resort, I can see no legitimate comparison between a series of measured warnings which, after full opportunity for response, lead to legal proceedings and what took place. {...there} ...can be no excuse for conduct of which it must be supposed the sole purpose must have been to make the Claimant's life so difficult that he would come to heel. I cannot think that in a society that is otherwise so sensitive of a consumer's position this is conduct that should countenanced.''

(iii) Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA 311 which confirms that pecuniary loss is not necessary for compensation to be payable and that pure distress is enough.

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 a year.

Throughout, UKPC Ltd and their agents have duplicated each letter, doubling the distress.  Their DPO knows or should know that three 'exact match' (save from dates) cases were sent as separate batches for litigation with me/my car as the data subject.

Someone should have linked and consolidated those batches but I guess no-one ever looked at it because your processes are automated to enable a conveyor belt to court, then in multiple PCN claims, fed to DCB Ltd's HCEOs within days of achieving default CCJs.

A perfect storm, from your Group's point of view, with monies being added at each and every stage.  It is high time someone stopped you from this abusive pursuit of motorists.

Your clients must take stock of their position and cease immediately.  I expect an apology at the very least.

Yours faithfully,


Husband's name

Grizebeck

That is stella work.

nomoredebt

That is amazing @Coupon-mad.  The only thing is the one we ended up paying is from a ukpc car park but the solicitors was QDR.  This offence was actually his latest which he did in 2021.

Does this make a difference.  Can we still use the above?