LBC advice for driver who 'possibly accepted guilt'

kensiko

Just have a quick question for when the claimant emails documents to the defence (ZZPS) and the courts next week.

I have read about 'court bundles'.  Is it worth creating a full bundle with the original claim form, the defence statement and the claimants WS (shown 3 posts above) in one PDF or do you just purely send the WS as the courts will already have everything else? 

The hearing letter states 'documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing' and specifically sets out how to write a WS.

I expect to get the defence WS later next week as well, so it will be interesting to see if they mention anything about the misleading email whatsoever, as up to this point they have said nothing.

Coupon-mad

As Claimant you should agree a joint (paginated) bundle of everything, before furnishing it to the court. Is the Defendant (ZZPS) using a solicitor?

kensiko

Thanks for the info CM.

I have no idea how ZZPS are progressing or if they have solicitors involved.  After failed mediation back in January I sent them a letter as advised by the mediator to continue talks etc.  As per usual had zero response.

Apart from the defence statement and the mediation phone call, I have no idea whatsoever what is happening on their side, they are very silent.


The above is a snippet of part of the instructions from the court.  If we both delivery WS statements next week, I am unable to create a full bundle with the defendants WS as we may file at the same time?

Coupon-mad

Ah OK.  The Order doesn't tell you to create a joint bundle?  I take it back then. Don't!

Just do your own evidence bundle.

kensiko

Excellent. I will send just the claimant WS as earlier posted.  Many thanks.

nopcns

Having trawled back through the whole thread to get an idea of what is happening, I am left wondering whether ZZPS are the right defendants in this case. Have ZZPS evidenced their alleged instruction from UKPC to cancel the PCN? If they have, then surely the claim should be against UKPC. Then again, if they have not evidenced the instruction from UKPC to actually cancel the PCN, then yes, ZZPS is the party that should be defending.

kensiko

This is a very fair point, but I think we have given them ample opportunity to explain this in the very first LBC sent last year.  A snippet of that letter:



This letter was completely ignored.  Their defence, which is posted in full earlier in this thread, mentions nothing of the email and they have never given a reason for it apart from:


Also, fun fact, it seems to be (from their very own SAR) it was 6th February 2023, not 6th April 2023 when this was 'closed':



This all happened on one day.  So it's very odd they can send the last threatening letter on the same day as the client closed the account.

If you didnt laugh, you would cry!!

nopcns

No problem then. They have failed to rebut your claim. They have provided no evidence to show that they were instructed by UKPC to cancel the PCN.

kensiko

Defence WS!!  My first thoughts below the statement, but I appreciate any comments that may be made.

The few points I spotted on first read through:

Paragraph 17.

Once again they admit to sending the misleading email.  At no point have they ever mentioned why the words 'cancelled on behalf of our client' or 'no outstanding balance' were used.

Paragraph 21.

This is the letter they sent after it was discovered they sent the email 'confirming their error'. I like how they state 'parking charge was closed with the defendant only and was not cancelled by the car park operator' at this stage.

Paragraph 22.  They have the wrong DCBL as the other company involved were DCB Legal (same thing, but worth noting).

Paragraph 30.  Stating LBC letters did not meet requirements because they have an 18 day turnaround time?  Not sure if this is a joke or not.  The 2 letters sent to them were 14 days apart as per PAP.  Still never received a reply to any of them (or the one after mediation).

Paragraph 33.

Claimant hadn't heard of DCB Legal before the one and only LBC letter from them, as the threats were to give the account to QDR which never happened.

Paragraph 34-35.

No explanation but then mention the LBC gave the reasonings?  Also the claim particulars is so small only the main points were written in there, which I beleive was done correctly.

Paragraph 38.

Nope, never happened.  Only 1 letter sent by DCB Legal (as per their own SAR) which was a LBC.

Paragraph 41 1,2&3).

I will have to look in more detail at these, but as of now I beleive everything to be done correctly.

Paragraph 44

Calls and emails to UKPC?  Even though that was the wrong thing to do at the time!

Paragraph 45
Did so many times, and no help was given regarding the email.  Knowing more now about claims due to doing this one, it seems when they kept advising the claimant 'the claim has been started and there is nothing they can do to stop it, so you much defend' was untrue.  Claimants are advised to mediate before court as much as possible.

Paragraph 46.  If the company sending the misleading email is not the right legal entity, who would be for all the confusion caused?  UKPC passed blame onto ZZPS for incorrectly saying it was cancelled with no balance.

Thank one and all.

Coupon-mad

Looks like an abject failure to adhere to the Data Protection Principles.  A fundamental part of the DPA 2018 and one of the mandatory appendices at the bottom of the BPA Code of Practice too.

This might help, in case at the hearing they try to say 'we are only an agent, the wrong guys!' and that they aren't a "joint data processor":

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/controllers-and-processors/controllers-and-processors/what-are-controllers-and-processors/#3

Clearly they ARE responsible for their communications and processing of your data and adhering to the DPA because ZZPS themselves replied to your SAR!  They didn't send it to UKPC to respond to, did they?!

ZZPS can't be heard to say "the DPA doesn't apply to us" if they admit they were bound by its SAR deadline & provisions!

They - NOT UKPC - assumed DPA responsibility all the time they held, stored and processed your data.  Thus, the Data Principles apply to ZZPS and they clearly misled you with not just inaccurate but downright misleading information, which caused you to make a transactional decision you would not otherwise have done (e.g. if their April email had said: "we have passed your file back to UKPC who may pursue the charge by alternative means/court" you WOULD NEVER have felt safe to ignore what looked like scam demands from DCB group, later).

Negligence or human error is no excuse for DPA breach; not that they pleaded that.  This is all about whether their email breached the DPA and whether that email directly or indirectly caused you detriment.

Did you attach a breakdown of how much their actions cost you - and proof - e.g. the default judgment and a receipt for paying it off?