DCB Legal / Highview Parking - Letter of Claim - SAR advice.

B789

Did you mean these CM?:

DCBLegal:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79609792#Comment_79609792

Gladstones:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79609792#Comment_79609792

BW Legal:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78430852#Comment_78430852

And another BW Legal one where they backed down:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77778681#Comment_77778681

JavascriptGuy

All the examples I'm seeing don't seem to align with my situation.

Up until now, all letters from the original PCN to the various debt recover companies have been ignored. So Any emails I send now will be the first correspondance to anyone.

This is why i'm unsure of what to include and who to send it to.

Please clarify.

Coupon-mad

Most people in those examples have ignored them until now. Almost every poster here with a LBC thinks their PCN is a complete "scam" charge and has not responded until this stage.  Or didn't receive the earlier letters due to an old address being used.

Either way, these examples are the style of  first response we recommend.

Get angry. It's a scam.  Spell out your dispute and not politely to these "bloodsuckers" (that's an MP's word in Parliament about this entire rip-off industry).

Your case isn't different.

 The linked examples show the tone and thrust of angry reply to deploy and who to send it to.  You set out your dispute - unclear signs? Machine not working? - and rudely tell the roboclaim bulk litigator to {exhortation to leave}.

It's about making your case harder for them and showing you are not a victim and will be defending the claim (which you will win because it's DCBLegal!).

JavascriptGuy

I'm struggling to find the right starting point for me. Most I'm finding are either further down the line or have previously appealed so this is not their first contact with anyone. 

Coupon-mad

They are all at LBC stage.  Exact same stage as you. Irrelevant if people have previously appealed.

JavascriptGuy

I've been through a number of previous posts and cherry picked some bits which I feel are relevant to me to end up with the following letter. Please let me know if this is any good.

---

Dear Sirs, 

I refer to your letter of claim, ref: XXXXXXXXX

I respond as the registered keeper in relation to this claim and no admission is made as to the identity of the driver.

I do not believe you have provided me with all the information required to comply with the pre-action protocol but in order to save time and any further costs in dealing with this matter I hope we can settle this claim now. 

Being legally represented, the prospective Claimant (your client) knows, or should know, that by detaching or allowing to remain detached, elements of alleged debt is an abuse of the civil litigation process.  

Given that you have sent this ‘Letter of claim’ to myself as the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged infraction then I presume that you are relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to ascertain keeper liability. 

You are no doubt aware that in order to rely on a ‘Notice to Keeper’ pursuant to paragraph 8 where the ‘Notice to Keeper’ follows the ‘Notice to Driver’ the following criteria must be met: 

8(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a ‘notice to keeper’ for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

At paragraph 3(1) we can see that the schedule provides the definition of ‘relevant land’:

“3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—

(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);

(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;

(c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.”

Since a ‘notice to keeper’ has not been provided, I trust this is sufficient to discontinue this claim.

If you persist, I will invite the court to vacate and dismiss the claim under the grounds of 'cause of action estoppel' and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.  I will be seeking my full costs from the Claimant, whose conduct in the pre- and post-action phases has been wholly unreasonable.

Ignorance of the existence of cause of action estoppel is no excuse.  My research discovered the above authorities and I am just a LiP forced to spend hours trying to get up to speed with a process I had never experienced before until your aggressive client set its sights on me.

By contrast, this is a Claimant and 'legal' firm who are well used to the court process.  The conduct of this Claimant and their legal representatives has been vexatious and when their course of conduct is taken as a whole, it certainly meets the bar set in Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269 which I believe will pave the way for the court to order the Claimant to pay my full costs.

The message for your client is to cease and desist, and if they fail to understand, may I refer them - and you - to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

Yours faithfully,

---

Thoughts?

Coupon-mad

Don't call it 'this claim' or 'sufficient to discontinue this claim' because it's not a claim!  Not yet.

You haven't done what I said and set out your dispute against the PCN itself.

What is the case about?  Which location and what alleged contravention?  Presumably (as always) the signage was pants so you had no idea?  That's your dispute!  Or the machine was not functioning if pay & display...?  Whatever the dispute is against the PCN. 

This bit makes no sense in your case:

"Being legally represented, the prospective Claimant (your client) knows, or should know, that by detaching or allowing to remain detached, elements of alleged debt is an abuse of the civil litigation process."

Errrm...they haven't detached other PCNs from this LBC have they? Haven't you only got one PCN?  That paragraph isn't relevsnt.

This person has just written their own robust rebuttal "get stuffed" LBC response, based on what they gleaned from other threads:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80112296/#Comment_80112296

Take inspiration and don't copy & paste huge chunks. Write your own angry argument about the facts!  Then show us.

JavascriptGuy

Thanks for that @Coupon-mad. I've used what I can from that example and am now at the following

--- BEGIN

Dear Sirs,

RE: Your reference xxxxxxx

I am writing to formally dispute the false claims of inflated debt that have been asserted against me in relation to a historical parking charge allegedly incurred on DATE. This letter serves as both a comprehensive rebuttal of the aforementioned claims and a stern warning of my intention to vigorously defend my rights and pursue a counterclaim should any further action be pursued without due merit.

I am surprised and deeply concerned by the lack of substantiation provided in support of the alleged debt. The absence of any verifiable evidence has only served to further erode my confidence in the validity of your claims.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has established comprehensive policies and procedures that are designed to ensure that solicitors conduct themselves in a manner that upholds the highest standards of professionalism, ethics, and transparency. In this case, it is abundantly clear that your actions have fallen woefully short of the SRA's guidelines.

Specifically, I would draw your attention to the following breaches of the SRA's policies and procedures:

Failure to Provide Sufficient Evidence: Your failure to provide adequate evidence to substantiate the alleged debt is a blatant violation of the SRA's principles of transparency and fairness. I insist that you immediately provide me with comprehensive documentation supporting your claim, including but not limited to copies of any agreements, invoices, or notices pertaining to the alleged parking charge.

Inflated Debt and Misrepresentation: It has come to my attention that the amount being claimed by your firm far exceeds any reasonable estimation of the alleged debt. This inflated figure appears to be a clear attempt to intimidate and coerce me into an unjust settlement. Such behaviour is expressly prohibited by the SRA's guidelines and constitutes a breach of your professional obligations.

Failure to Conduct a Proper Investigation: Your firm's lack of due diligence in investigating the veracity of the alleged debt is deeply troubling. It is evident that no comprehensive assessment of the facts has been undertaken, leading to erroneous claims being made against me. This negligent approach is contrary to the SRA's requirement for solicitors to act with reasonable skill, care, and diligence.

Given the aforementioned breaches and the overall lack of credibility in your assertions, I hereby demand that all further action in this matter be immediately ceased. This includes any attempts to pursue legal proceedings, commence debt collection activities, or tarnish my reputation in any way.

Failure to comply with this request will leave me with no choice but to defend my rights vigorously through all available legal channels and, furthermore, to initiate a counterclaim against your firm for negligent or deliberate data abuse. To be clear, due to the nature and wording of the misleading letter, the communication constitutes unwarranted harassment.  I dispute the quantum and object to the intimidatory, misleading nature of the entire operation. 

Your clients have no cause of action and must stop. Kindly inform your clients that if a claim is filed, I will counterclaim and I will seek damages for distress and/or breach of statutory duty for a sum of not less than £300, which is at the lower end of established guidance regarding harassment claims, pursuant to the following:

a) damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ breach of statutory duty and misleading actions within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as amended by the Consumer Protection Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (“the Regulations”); 

b) damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ breach of statutory duty arising from breaches of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA');

c) damages for distress caused by breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation ('the GDPR');

d) damages for distress caused by harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ('the PFHA') ref section 3.

The conduct of your client 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 client, their agents and your firm.  As a Litigant in Person I have suffered substantial damage and distress, causing sleepless nights, headaches and extreme worry.  I consider myself a robust person but I am only human and will attest to the severe effect on my peace of mind, on oath if required by the Judge.  Your clients are the cause of enormous anxiety for me and my family and it is unacceptable conduct from a group of businesses purporting to be professional enterprises.

To ensure the proper handling of this dispute and to protect my rights, I request that you provide a written response within 14 days of receipt of this letter. Your clients must take stock of their position and cease immediately.  If your clients ignore this fair warning, as mentioned above I will file a counterclaim, as well as a robust defence and will also pursue my entire costs to this case pursuant to Part 27.14(2)(g) of the Civil Procedure Rules due to their wholly unreasonable conduct.

Yours faithfully

--- END

Coupon-mad

Much better - but still generic and vague.

..where is the bit near the start that clearly tells them WHY you say this debt isn't owed?

You must have some idea of the PCN?  This is why I keep asking you to state the facts: what this is about and what exactly went wrong!

JavascriptGuy

The original PCN from December 2021 was about overstaying in a car park. 3 hours limit.. stayed for 3h 32.
What exactly can I say about that? Unfortunately the car park is signed pretty clearly but as it was around xmas... the first xmas after covid the retail park was very busy as you can imagine so queues were long both in stores and entering/exiting the car park.