CCJ vs CP Plus Ltd (DCBL) Applying for Set-Aside

NahkoMed

Hi all,

I'm a newbie here, I've read the newbie thread, and many others, and I'm looking for some help with a PCN for which I've recieved a LBC from DCB Legal.

The claim is for a 4 hour 2 minutes stay in a multistory carpark in Liverpool. My representation is that I tried to pay using the online system, thought it had cleared and left. When I recieved the PCN I immediately appealed, explaining the situation and (perhaps foolishly) offering to pay the original £4.50 as well as any "provable loss" but remarking that the £100 (or £60) claim was completely unreasonable, and that I didn't know what it was for. I may also have admitted to being the driver at that time, though the LBC isn't specific about this. 

When they ignored all that, I tried a few times to reason with them, and ask for supportive documentation but - as I'm sure you already know - they ignored that too. If only I'd found this forum first...!

Here is my draft for a robust response to the LBC which is due on the 29th. Any help or reassurange you can offer is really gratefully recieved. It's actually been really stressful so far and I'm not looking forward to the next stages!

--------------

Your Ref. ############
######## vs #########
Proposed Legal Proceedings

Thank you for your letter of 30th October 2023.

I confirm that my address for service is:

[REDACTED]

First, the debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

Second, I will be seeking independent debt advice and as such request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017.

Third, may I say that I was shocked and surprised to receive your letter, which, despite  your claim that it is “in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims”, I find to be deficient in more than one particular.  If, as it appears from your letterhead, you are a firm of solicitors, I have little option but to conclude that this is a deliberate attempt to mislead and intimidate the recipient. I hope that this is not the case.

The tagline “Can’t Pay? We’ll Take it Away”, that you, and your sister company so brazenly display on your letterhead, appears to me to be not only misleading, but also insulting, and unprofessional. No debt to your client by me has been proven, and neither you nor DCBL has any right whatsoever to my property.

Frustration and Dispute of Contract
Throughout the already lengthy and stressful process of dealing with your client’s claim against me, I have explained to them more than once that the alleged “breach” of contract, in fact, never occurred. I did, in fact, make entirely reasonable attempts to pay for parking through the online system (no other alternatives were available) and had no intention whatsoever to leave without paying. As such, any contract between us was, if anything, frustrated.

If the intention is to claim that, by parking in Liverpool ##### at all, I have somehow agreed to pay the outrageous sums demanded by your client, then the burden will be upon you to prove this. My recollection of signage at Liverpool ####### is that it is woefully inadequate in communicating anything of the sort.

Notwithstanding all this, once I received the initial PCN from your client, and realised that payment had, in fact not been taken, despite what I took to be confirmation to that effect. I immediately appealed in good faith, explaining the situation and offering to pay the £4.50 that I had originally intended to pay, as a gesture of goodwill, and without prejudice. I even offered to compensate your client for any provable loss in excess of this. Both of these generous offers were ignored, as were numerous subsequent attempts that I made to engage your client in dialogue, and resolution.

During the course of these attempts, I also made several very reasonable requests for information and documentation in support of the claims against me, all of which I believe fall within the scope of the PAP for debt claims. These, too, were ignored in favour of the same kind of coercive, presumptive language which seems to characterise both #### and DCB Legal’s approach to these matters. I am lead, therefore, to conclude that your client’s claim arises not so much from legitimate interest, nor genuine desire to uphold a contract, but rather a bad-faith attempt to extort money from me using the threat of legal action. Again, I can only hope that I am wrong.

Request for Supportive Documentation

If it is still your wish to pursue the county court claim that your client intends to bring against me, please provide the following documentation:

Timestamped photographs of the vehicle for the period in question
Photographs of the signage which you claim is “prominent”
A copy of the written contract which is alleged
Notice to Keeper for the charges in question
Evidence that the payment system was, as your client claimed in response to my original appeal, “working” at the time in question.
Evidence that your client, the parking agent, is also the landowner of the land in question and/or
In the event that they are not the landowner, but rather an agent for the landowner, evidence of a deed of assignment compliant with section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the landowner.

Finally, your letter to me is not specific as to whether your client holds me liable as the Driver or Registered Keeper. Please provide confirmation of this, together with any supporting documentation, since I cannot after such a long time, be certain if I was indeed the driver on that date. This is necessary for me in order to determine if your client’s claim is compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Yours faithfully

NahkoMed

Thanks in advance.

Fruitcake

What is the name if the PPC please?

Where did the alleged event occur?

Most of what you have put in your response to the LBC is a rant, which serves no real purpose. Irrespective of whether you revealed the driver's identity in previous correspondence, you have told DCB Legal Ltd that you were the driver in that response. 
None of what you have put will stop a claim being issued if that's what the PPC wants, so you are wasting time and effort on something that may not even be read, or at best, skim read.

My advice is, send the 30 day hold instruction, identify the landowner, complain to them and your MP, and get photos of the site and signage. Google Streetview may help with the latter.

Don't ask for documentation at this stage. Definitely do not send an SAR until after a claim has been served.

NahkoMed

Fruitcake said:

What is the name if the PPC please?

Where did the alleged event occur?

Thanks for your quick reply. It's "CP plus Ltd" Trading as "GroupNexus". The claim is for an event in Liverpool Central. Noted your feedback and will amend, thanks.

Fruitcake

NahkoMed said:

Fruitcake said:

What is the name if the PPC please?

Where did the alleged event occur?

Thanks for your quick reply. It's "CP plus Ltd" Trading as "GroupNexus". The claim is for an event in Liverpool Central. Noted your feedback and will amend, thanks.

That doesn't help. I asked because the site may have cropped up before, and/or there may be information already on the forum about the landowner and/or images of the site and signage.

Coupon-mad

Remove this:

Third, may I say that I was shocked and surprised to receive your letter, which, despite  your claim that it is “in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims”, I find to be deficient in more than one particular.  If, as it appears from your letterhead, you are a firm of solicitors, I have little option but to conclude that this is a deliberate attempt to mislead and intimidate the recipient. I hope that this is not the case.

and remove all requests for evidence.

I would not ask for any photos or info.
You would actually be better not having that level of detail pre-claim so you can use CEL v Chan in your defence (see the Template Defence) as that gives a good chance of the claim being struck out.

Instead ask if the added £70 is a supposed DRA fee and if so, is it nett of VAT or inclusive, and if the latter, why are you being required to pay the operator's VAT?

And secondly, ask them to explain the nature of the £100 parking charge.  Is it damages? Or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

Please ask in those exact terms/words.  There's a reason why to ask exactly the above two questions!

Also it is not too late to complain to the landowner.  This is not litigation stage yet. 

NahkoMed

Fruitcake said:

NahkoMed said:

Fruitcake said:

What is the name if the PPC please?

Where did the alleged event occur?

Thanks for your quick reply. It's "CP plus Ltd" Trading as "GroupNexus". The claim is for an event in Liverpool Central. Noted your feedback and will amend, thanks.

That doesn't help. I asked because the site may have cropped up before, and/or there may be information already on the forum about the landowner and/or images of the site and signage.

Thanks for trying anyway!

NahkoMed

Coupon-mad said:

Remove this:

Third, may I say that I was shocked and surprised to receive your letter, which, despite  your claim that it is “in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims”, I find to be deficient in more than one particular.  If, as it appears from your letterhead, you are a firm of solicitors, I have little option but to conclude that this is a deliberate attempt to mislead and intimidate the recipient. I hope that this is not the case.

and remove all requests for evidence.

I would not ask for any photos or info.
You would actually be better not having that level of detail pre-claim so you can use CEL v Chan in your defence (see the Template Defence) as that gives a good chance of the claim being struck out.

Instead ask if the added £70 is a supposed DRA fee and if so, is it nett of VAT or inclusive, and if the latter, why are you being required to pay the operator's VAT?

And secondly, ask them to explain the nature of the £100 parking charge.  Is it damages? Or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

Please ask in those exact terms/words.  There's a reason why to ask exactly the above two questions!

Also it is not too late to complain to the landowner.  This is not litigation stage yet. 

This is all really helpful, thank you so much! Especially about CEL v Chan. It began to dawn on me after Fruitcake's reply that this might be the case, since I've read CEL v Chan already, and this has really consolidated things for me.

NahkoMed

Here is a revised version:

Your Ref. ############
Cp Plus Ltd T/a Groupnexus vs ##########
Proposed Legal Proceedings

Thank you for your letter of 30th October 2023.

I confirm that my address for service is:

[Redacted]

Please accept the following as a formal response to your Letter Before Claim.

First, the debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

Second, I will be seeking independent debt advice and as such request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017.

Third, I note that the amount being claimed has increased from £100 to £170. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents a DRA, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

With regard to the principle sum claimed (£100). Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

Yours faithfully

________________________

I'm interested to hear any other views with regard to the "rant" parts in the previous version, or certain parts of it. I've seen a few other LBC responses that take this tone, or try to begin to make a case, but tbh this one sits better with me. Thanks again to all who have given input so far.

KeithP

Be careful about what you are asking for.
A delay of thirty days will see a Claim Form drop through your letter-box a few days before Christmas.

Coupon-mad

Too polite!

No 'Thankyou' for an aggressive threatogram...

No 'please accept'.  They have to!

And it's 'principal' sum (not 'le').