DCB Legal / UKPC

StevenSeagull

Hi

Have read Newbies thread but still conscious of following the correct process.

Received DCB Legal LOC 14/08/23. No previous letters received until SAR request from UKPC as these were sent to a previous address. This is the same letter from DCB in the thread below. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6421292/letter-of-claim-from-dcb-legal-pcn-dated-2019#latest

Requested and received SAR - shows two images from separate visits to McDonalds suggesting car was parked overnight approx 12 hours apart which was not the case (have proof of a hotel booking nearby in the same complex - will go there later to check if they have CCTV footage. Is there any other steps I should follow to shut this down ASAP ie. appeal via UKPC or is this too late?

Do I wait until nearer the time to contact DCB legal or should I action this now? (30 days would be 13th September).

Do I need to do the AOS now or this after the 30 days are up?

Thanks in advance for any support

KeithP

StevenSeagull said:

Do I need to do the AOS now or this after the 30 days are up?

Hello and welcome.

Another Brighton supporter?

You have not yet received a Claim Form, have you?
Therefore it would not be appropriate to acknowledge service of it.

B789

AoS at least 5 days after "date of issue" and within 19 days of the issue date. Defence is to be submitted by 4pm on the first working day 34 days after the date of issue.

Follow advice in the second post of the Newbies/FAQ thread. Using the template defence, they will eventually discontinue before any hearing.

Coupon-mad

I'm loving your username.

StevenSeagull

KeithP said:

StevenSeagull said:

Do I need to do the AOS now or this after the 30 days are up?

Hello and welcome.

Another Brighton supporter?

You have not yet received a Claim Form, have you?
Therefore it would not be appropriate to acknowledge service of it.

Hi Keith

Up the Albion!

All I've received is the 'letter of claim' which is in the thread here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6421292/letter-of-claim-from-dcb-legal-pcn-dated-2019#latest is this effectively a LBC and I need to wait for an official claim so I go through the AOS process?

Second bit....do I wait until nearer the 30 days? (which would be 13th Sept) to contact the solicitor to state (a) I am seeking debt advice etc?

Thanks to B789 and Coupon Mad for the welcomes - much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

UTA!

I'm the BHA fan out of the regulars on this board!  Also posting as LadySeagull on North Stand Chat forum.

I prefer a more robust reply to a LBC.  Sometimes it prevents a claim.

Search the forum for:

robust LBC Arkell

and change 'best match' to NEWEST.

StevenSeagull

This is excellent - thank you @Coupon-mad

Drafted the following:

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 …..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.

The evidence provided by UK Parking Control unquestionably demonstrates two images captured during SEPARATE visits to the retail park on different days. The allegation of staying over 10 hours in the aforementioned retail park is incorrect. Furthermore, I enclose evidence of the hotel booking on the alleged date which has FREE parking and was where the vehicle was stored overnight.

Furthermore, upon careful review of the correspondence received from your firm on …..I was both surprised and deeply concerned by the lack of substantiation provided in support of the alleged debt. The absence of any verifiable evidence, coupled with the obvious discrepancies and procedural errors evident in your communications, 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, number and wording of the unrelenting and wholly misleading letters, the entire series of communications 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.

Personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully.  Your clients stand in breach of Article 5 (1) of the GDPR (the requirement for lawfulness, fairness and transparency) and the doctrines of open dealing and good faith in the CRA.  There was inadequate signage, no clear unambiguous terms and no permit scheme or other 'relevant obligation' that related to myself.  Accordingly, the processing of my DVLA data was not “necessary for the performance of, or commencing, a contract”, since no such contract existed. I will be reporting your clients to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for the initial processing and for sharing and allowing my data to be misused by National Car Parks limited and BW Legal to send various misleading communications.

By operating in a predatory fashion with inadequate signage, your clients had no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.  Your client had, and still has, no prospect of furthering their purpose and no legitimate cause to continue processing my data.

In accordance with Principles 1,2 and 5 of the Data Protection Principles they were not permitted to either obtain, process or keep it.  The quantum of the alleged debt is in breach of Schedule 2 of the CRA and the misleading wording of this bombardment of demands from your client, their agents and yourselves, pays no regard to the PAP, the FCA rules or the Regulations cited above in (a).  It is unfair business practice for a parking firm to state that they are a member, yet fail to comply with the applicable Code of Practice, which the Supreme Court took to be effectively 'regulatory'.  The conduct of your client and their agents (including your firm) has amounted to an unfair commercial practice which is prohibited under regulation 3 of the CPTURs and a misleading action within the meaning of regulations 5 and 6, for which redress is available under regulation 27(J)(b).

In all the premises, the conduct of your clients 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

link

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)

link

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 over the course of over two years now.  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.

I was seriously upset by what has been painted as if it is a credible threat to my credit rating with a CCJ.  It is even more alarming that your most recent ‘letter of claim’ was timed by you or your client's deliberate actions, to arrive over sixteen months since the last correspondence on the matter, for reasons I can only assume are designed to inflict maximum impact.  I am certain that most people would have succumbed to the crippling pressure you exert, and paid to avoid the stress.  If the bullying and misleading conduct aimed at me regarding this alleged PCNs is an example of what your clients and BW Legal do every day, then sanctions by the various authorities are long overdue.

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

Coupon-mad

 I will be reporting your clients to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for the initial processing and for sharing and allowing my data to be misused by National Car Parks limited and BW Legal to send various misleading communications.

 If the bullying and misleading conduct aimed at me regarding this alleged PCNs is an example of what your clients and BW Legal do every day, then sanctions by the various authorities are long overdue.

Who?!  Detail check needed.

Obviously you must change everything to suit: DCBLegal and UKPC not BW Legal and NCP!

And here it should read 'your client's claim' as shown, and should ask for the orphan images of your car leaving & returning:

"...your client's claim, including but not limited to copies of any letters or notices pertaining to the alleged parking charge; confirmed on site image(s) of the alleged contract (sign) taken on the day (not stock photos of a sign template that UKPC made earlier) and all images of the car traversing the site in between that 10 hour period: i.e. what UKPC's apology for a Data Protection Officer will call the 'orphan ANPR images' of the car leaving on day one and returning on day two."

1505grandad

Also just checking:-

" It is even more alarming that your most recent ‘letter of claim’ was timed by you or your client's deliberate actions, to arrive over sixteen months since the last correspondence on the matter, for reasons I can only assume are designed to inflict maximum impact."

Is that time period correct as it is an exact copy of a previous example?

Umkomaas

Keep jumping through all the legal hoops required in the process of dealing with any UKPC/DCB Legal claim that follows, and eventually get yourself a mention in the thread below. 

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

patient_dream

All these DCBL claims are fast becoming a joke especially with the rubbish UKPC claims

As a judge recently said about UKPC claims .. THEY ARE RIDICULOUS and with the legal involved it's extortion.

So, play the game with DCBL, we enjoy it and so should you.

At the end of the day, DCBL can only go two ways ..
1: Go to court and risk being spanked by the judge
2: DISCONTINUE which they seem to prefer wasting the courts time