DCBL letter of claim

Evi89qr

Good day everyone

I am writing as my father got a Loc from dbcl for a overstayed parking at BP MET parking Stansted in 2018. He's saying that he was cleaning his car and wait for another 30 minutes over there. What he should do now? Should he just pay for those blood duckers?

Coupon-mad

Of course he doesn't pay!  He WANTS a court claim because DCB Legal will discontinue.  They always do, when people use our Template Defence. Scam over in 2024.

Anyway at LoC stage the advice is the same as this one and all the other LOC or LBC threads:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6486328/cst-law-lbc-letter-before-claim-met-parking-services-ltd-stansted/p1

What month in 2018?  

Evi89qr

Thank you all for a replay. I had to pick up a letter from him so there is another site of a letter.
Issue date is 01/01/2018

Evi89qr

Should I wrote a response to them let's say after 3rd of December? It would be a 23 days since letter was issued and also if I do so and ask for additional 30 days to led advice it would be more than 6 years to make a ccj isn't it? 
I am asking just to make sure I am doing good think for my dad
Thanks

Coupon-mad

You are absolutely right.  That ends it!  

Evi89qr

Hi again

I had a time to read through topic which you provided in previous reply.

Email will look like that

Email topic: LBC response

Email text:

Dear Sir or Madam

 I write with reference to a “Letter before Claim” or “LBC” reference (XXXXX) dated 10th of November 2023, but not received until the 22nd of November 2023, informing me of a 30-day window in which to take action.

Reducing the available time this way already tells me the kind of unscrupulous people I'm dealing with and suggests that you should date your letters closer to their actual posting date, lest it be seen as trying to manipulate a system and additionally cause unwarranted stress, fear and anxiety over alleged debts.

I fully and robustly deny any debt alleged regarding the above references, and as the registered keeper I deny any liability or entering into any contractual agreement, as stated by your customer MET Parking. I will be as well making a complaint to MET Parking client's landowner about their predatory conduct. 

I also intend to challenge the legitimacy and fairness of the inflated “Parking Charge” of £170 which has been wholly proven in the courts to be an abuse of process and an unfair and unjust addition without any grounds nor reasoning to its purpose.

I note that you are relying on pursuance of the alleged debt to the “Registered Keeper” of the vehicle. I wish to remind you of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 4) which states:

“(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.”

and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 5) which states:

“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.”

I draw your attention to the original “Notice to Keeper” delivered (XXXXX) to myself on the xxxxx. In this letter are the particulars “Issue Date (printed)” as the xxxx and “Contravention Date” as the xxxxxx.

As per the above, the letter has been printed on the 10th day following the alleged contravention and as such, is not compliant with the “relevant period” and as such I received the letter on the 22nd day from the date of the contravention.

The letter is believed to have been posted 2nd Class to my address so could not have arrived sooner than the 14 day cut-off.

The PCN  has clearly failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA related to the relevant period and it's vague in its wording - which also fails to comply with requirements of Schedule 4 Section 9 of POFA - and consequently, Met Parking Services Ltd has forfeited any right to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXX.

I wish to refer you to recent court cases in which Excel Parking Services Limited and Vehicle Control Services Limited, a sister company to Excel, LOST based on this very above stated fact.

(i). In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed, and Excel's claim was dismissed.

(ii). In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re-claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded, and the Claim was dismissed.

I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so.  The PCN is not effective to transfer liability to myself (the keeper) because it does not comply with the conditions for a notice to keeper in Schedule 4 of the POFA.

I require you/your clients to cancel the PCN and erase my data within 14 days of this email.

If you persist in processing and/or sharing my data and in the event of MET Parking Services Limited filing a court claim, take note that I will file a Part 20 counterclaim for not less than £500.  This will be claimed as damages for distress arising as a result of clear breaches of the Data Protection Act 2018 and/or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

I will rely upon the case of Simon Clay v Civil Enforcement Ltd and similar cases that have succeeded.

Yours faithfully

Could you just guide me what should I put in here?

I draw your attention to the original “Notice to Keeper” delivered (XXXXX) to myself on the xxxxx. In this letter are the particulars “Issue Date (printed)” as the xxxx and “Contravention Date” as the xxxxxx.

Also should I put this line as well?

I fully and robustly deny any debt alleged regarding the above references, however I am currently seeking debt advice and demand that the case must be put on hold for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

Many thanks 

Coupon-mad

That final paragraph that you asked whether to include is the only important bit!

Eek if you forget that, your Dad will get a claim in December.

Evi89qr

Thank you for response

I added this important line  so there is a edited version.
 I just need help with filling this bit out:

I draw your attention to the original “Notice to Keeper” delivered (xxxxxx) to myself on the xxxxx. In this letter are the particulars “Issue Date (printed)” as the xxxx and “Contravention Date” as the xxxxxx

Dear Sir or Madam

 I write with reference to a “Letter before Claim” or “LBC” reference (XXXXX) dated 10th of November 2023, but not received until the 22nd of November 2023, informing me of a 30-day window in which to take action.

Reducing the available time this way already tells me the kind of unscrupulous people I'm dealing with and suggests that you should date your letters closer to their actual posting date, lest it be seen as trying to manipulate a system and additionally cause unwarranted stress, fear and anxiety over alleged debts.

I fully and robustly deny any debt alleged regarding the above references, however I am currently seeking debt advice and demand that the case must be put on hold for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

I fully and robustly deny any debt alleged regarding the above references, and as the registered keeper I deny any liability or entering into any contractual agreement, as stated by your customer MET Parking. I will be as well making a complaint to MET Parking client's landowner about their predatory conduct. 

I also intend to challenge the legitimacy and fairness of the inflated “Parking Charge” of £170 which has been wholly proven in the courts to be an abuse of process and an unfair and unjust addition without any grounds nor reasoning to its purpose.

I note that you are relying on pursuance of the alleged debt to the “Registered Keeper” of the vehicle. I wish to remind you of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 4) which states:

“(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.”

and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 5) which states:

“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.”

I draw your attention to the original “Notice to Keeper” delivered (XXXXX) to myself on the xxxxx. In this letter are the particulars “Issue Date (printed)” as the xxxx and “Contravention Date” as the xxxxxx.

As per the above, the letter has been printed on the 10th day following the alleged contravention and as such, is not compliant with the “relevant period” and as such I received the letter on the 22nd day from the date of the contravention.

The letter is believed to have been posted 2nd Class to my address so could not have arrived sooner than the 14 day cut-off.

The PCN  has clearly failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA related to the relevant period and it's vague in its wording - which also fails to comply with requirements of Schedule 4 Section 9 of POFA - and consequently, Met Parking Services Ltd has forfeited any right to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXX.

I wish to refer you to recent court cases in which Excel Parking Services Limited and Vehicle Control Services Limited, a sister company to Excel, LOST based on this very above stated fact.

(i). In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed, and Excel's claim was dismissed.

(ii). In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re-claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded, and the Claim was dismissed.

I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so.  The PCN is not effective to transfer liability to myself (the keeper) because it does not comply with the conditions for a notice to keeper in Schedule 4 of the POFA.

I require you/your clients to cancel the PCN and erase my data within 14 days of this email.

If you persist in processing and/or sharing my data and in the event of MET Parking Services Limited filing a court claim, take note that I will file a Part 20 counterclaim for not less than £500.  This will be claimed as damages for distress arising as a result of clear breaches of the Data Protection Act 2018 and/or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

I will rely upon the case of Simon Clay v Civil Enforcement Ltd and similar cases that have succeeded.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

That's too long.

Remove: "a sister company to Excel, "

And certainly remove all of this:

I fully and robustly deny any debt alleged regarding the above references, and as the registered keeper I deny any liability or entering into any contractual agreement, as stated by your customer MET Parking. I will be as well making a complaint to MET Parking client's landowner about their predatory conduct. 

I also intend to challenge the legitimacy and fairness of the inflated “Parking Charge” of £170 which has been wholly proven in the courts to be an abuse of process and an unfair and unjust addition without any grounds nor reasoning to its purpose.

I note that you are relying on pursuance of the alleged debt to the “Registered Keeper” of the vehicle. I wish to remind you of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 4) which states:

“(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.”

and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 5) which states:

“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.”

I draw your attention to the original “Notice to Keeper” delivered (XXXXX) to myself on the xxxxx. In this letter are the particulars “Issue Date (printed)” as the xxxx and “Contravention Date” as the xxxxxx.

As per the above, the letter has been printed on the 10th day following the alleged contravention and as such, is not compliant with the “relevant period” and as such I received the letter on the 22nd day from the date of the contravention.

The letter is believed to have been posted 2nd Class to my address so could not have arrived sooner than the 14 day cut-off.

The PCN  has clearly failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA related to the relevant period and it's vague in its wording - which also fails to comply with requirements of Schedule 4 Section 9 of POFA 

Replace all that with:

The location is not 'relevant land' and thus there can be no lawful claim against the registered keeper. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not apply. Consequently....

Evi89qr

Thank you so much. Please see admented version.

One more question: should I send it from my father's email or create new one?

I write with reference to a “Letter before Claim” or “LBC” reference (XXXXX) dated 10th of November 2023, but not received until the 22nd of November 2023, informing me of a 30-day window in which to take action.

Reducing the available time this way already tells me the kind of unscrupulous people I'm dealing with and suggests that you should date your letters closer to their actual posting date, lest it be seen as trying to manipulate a system and additionally cause unwarranted stress, fear and anxiety over alleged debts.

I fully and robustly deny any debt alleged regarding the above references, however I am currently seeking debt advice and demand that the case must be put on hold for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

The location is not 'relevant land' and thus there can be no lawful claim against the registered keeper. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not apply. Consequently, Met Parking Services Ltd has forfeited any right to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXX.

I wish to refer you to recent court cases in which Excel Parking Services Limited and Vehicle Control Services Limited LOST based on this very above stated fact.

(i). In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed, and Excel's claim was dismissed.

(ii). In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re-claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded, and the Claim was dismissed.

I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so.  The PCN is not effective to transfer liability to myself (the keeper) because it does not comply with the conditions for a notice to keeper in Schedule 4 of the POFA.

I require you/your clients to cancel the PCN and erase my data within 14 days of this email.

If you persist in processing and/or sharing my data and in the event of MET Parking Services Limited filing a court claim, take note that I will file a Part 20 counterclaim for not less than £500.  This will be claimed as damages for distress arising as a result of clear breaches of the Data Protection Act 2018 and/or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

I will rely upon the case of Simon Clay v Civil Enforcement Ltd and similar cases that have succeeded.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

I'd use your email but sign off with his name. Then you are in control for him (with his permission of course).