Letter of Claim from DCB Legal - PCN dated 2019

patient_dream

anotheronewasted said:

Coupon-mad said:

If you say you are seeking debt advice they HAVE TO give you 30 days hold.  If you don't want to delay it,then don't use that phrase at all.

Why not ask for their client's evidence to enable you to identify the event, location and driver from images, and a photo of the contract (the sign) in situ on the material date.

• Debt Recovery Plus Ltd. x4
• Zenith Collections x3
• SCS Law x1
• ZZPS x1
• QDR Solicitors x2
• Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd x4

Ref. <redacted>

I write this mail in reference to a letter received 20.01.2023.

The letter is dated 16 January 2023

Your ref. <redacted>

Titled "Letter of Claim"

This letter pertains to an alleged PCN (Parking CHARGE Notice)

PCN ref. <redacted>, issued on 20.07.2019

The reason quoted as "Parked for longer than the maximum period permitted"

Due to the lack of information contained within your letter, i am unable to verify this.

Therefore i cannot accept any alleged debt. 

In order to help me identify this alleged event, can you please provide evidence (photographs) of such that identifies the location, date, time and driver of the aforementioned vehicle during said time, along with a clear, high resolution image (photograph) of the contract in situ on the date of the alleged breech.

In parallel to this I have submitted an SAR request to your client, UK Parking Control Limited.

Please confirm that this email has been received, read and understood.

And that my free request as stated above is upheld.

Yours Faithfully

ALL DREGS OF THE PARKING SCAM

NO SURPRISE ..... ALL are BPA members ??? SO SAD

Coupon-mad

anotheronewasted said:

Please confirm that this email has been received, read and understood.  And that my free request as stated above is upheld.

None of that means anything.  The response is also not very robust.

Please see and adapt to suit, this robust LBC reply example that I linked in my advice to this person here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79840745/#Comment_79840745

anotheronewasted

Coupon-mad said:

None of that means anything.  The response is also not very robust.

Please see and adapt to suit, this robust LBC reply example that I linked in my advice to this person here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79840745/#Comment_79840745

Interesting, I assumed (wrongly again) that my reply to DCBLegal would be to initiate the denial process, but based on your draft letter, I can actually deny at this stage?
Are you saying my entire draft is garbage, or just the closing comment is no use? Im pretty sure i grabbed the basic structure from another post on MSF, cant find it though right now.

Your linked post is somewhat forceful, and very direct. Is this always the best way to tackle these?

Coupon-mad

The closing paragraph just didn't say anything!  Free request? Upheld?  Not sure what it means but it isn't at all robust and doesn't set them a task to respond with x by y date (as needed in a relevant and time-bound communication).

I wasn't saying the whole thing is bad but you are being far too tentative and polite.

Yes, the only way to possibly stop a claim once a roboclaim firm has got it between their teeth is to wrestle it back out, with forceful words and demanding evidence.  The aim is to get your case put in the "too difficult/ not a victim" pile.

If you don't like phrases like "put up or shut up" then certainly don't use them but have another think about how to be far more robust with what is a rogue industry trying to rinse money from you.

anotheronewasted

Coupon-mad said:

The closing paragraph just didn't say anything!  Free request? Upheld?  Not sure what it means but it isn't at all robust and doesn't set them a task to respond with x by y date (as needed in a relevant and time-bound communication).

I wasn't saying the whole thing is bad but you are being far too tentative and polite.

Yes, the only way to possibly stop a claim once a roboclaim firm has got it between their teeth is to wrestle it back out, with forceful words and demanding evidence.  The aim is to get your case put in the "too difficult/ not a victim" pile.

If you don't like phrases like "put up or shut up" then certainly don't use them but have another think about how to be far more robust with what is a rogue industry trying to rinse money from you.

OK, I'm following now

I think I may have been coming at this from the wrong angle, but what you say makes complete sense...make it as painful for them as possible.
I will certainly re-think it, and draft up another response, being a bit clearer and precise in what I'm saying / asking. 

anotheronewasted

OK, so I have another draft.
I think this is a bit clearer on my position

Ref. <redacted>

I write this mail in reference to a letter received 20.01.2023.

The letter is dated 16 January 2023

Your ref. <redacted>

Titled "Letter of Claim"

This letter pertains to an alleged PCN (Parking CHARGE Notice)

PCN ref. <redacted>, issued on 20.07.2019

The reason quoted as "Parked for longer than the maximum period permitted"

Due to the lack of information contained within your letter, i am unable to verify this.

Therefore I cannot accept any alleged debt. 

As I have not received any Notice to Keeper from your client, UK Parking Control Limited (UKPC), I was not aware of the alleged breech.

Furthermore, all attempts I have made to contact UKPC following receipt of correspondence from multiple 3rd parties working on behalf of UKPC, where ignored. Including multiple phone calls, and ignored mails, all of which are logged.

Additionally, when trying to access the UKCP website at the time, it had in fact been hijacked / hacked, again video evidence is available.

In order to help me try and identify this alleged event, can you please provide clear evidence (photographs) of such that identifies the location, date, time and driver of the aforementioned vehicle during said time, along with a clear, high resolution image (photograph) of the contract in situ on the date of the alleged breech.

In parallel to this I have submitted an SAR request to your client, UK Parking Control Limited (UKPC).

I am also informed that your client, UK Parking Control Ltd. is no longer the landowner / occupier or manager of the site in question. 

As such, any 'contract' breech, or alleged debt is firmly denied, and so debt demands and aggressive requests for payments will not be answered. 

I am also interested in the breakdown of the amount due. What is the parking charge? What is the debt recovery costs? How are these calculated? The addition of any extra costs is nothing short of extortion, and in no way reflects any amount of 'lost revenue'

Please confirm that this email has been received, read and understood via return mail acknowledgement.

I also expect to receive the above mentioned evidence within 2 weeks.

Without such evidence it is not possible for me to even begin to try and remember my whereabouts and actions from over 3 years ago, in a vehicle I do not own any more.

Yours Faithfully

Coupon-mad

Don't say "my whereabouts" because presumably you don't know who was driving.

Typos seen:

UKCP

breech (twice spelt wrong).

anotheronewasted

Coupon-mad said:

Don't say "my whereabouts" because presumably you don't know who was driving.

Typos seen:

UKCP

breech (twice spelt wrong).

Good catch on the typo and spellings, probably shouldn't reference cannons.

As for "my whereabouts"
What would you do, get rid of that statement entirely? 
Or change to something like
"Without such evidence it is not possible for me to even begin to try and remember an event from over 3 years ago, in a vehicle I do not own any more."

Le_Kirk

anotheronewasted said:

As for "my whereabouts"
What would you do, get rid of that statement entirely? 
Or change to something like
"Without such evidence it is not possible for me to even begin to try and remember an event from over 3 years ago, in a vehicle I do not own any more."

 I would change it to "concerning a vehicle......." because you were never "in" it!

anotheronewasted

Le_Kirk said:

anotheronewasted said:

As for "my whereabouts"
What would you do, get rid of that statement entirely? 
Or change to something like
"Without such evidence it is not possible for me to even begin to try and remember an event from over 3 years ago, in a vehicle I do not own any more."

 I would change it to "concerning a vehicle......." because you were never "in" it!

Nice, I like it
I'll go with
"Without such evidence it is not possible for me to even begin to try and remember an event concerning a vehicle I do not own any more, from over 3 years ago"