Claim Form received from the Dumb & Dumber duo (DCBLegal & UKPC)

Gr1pr

Its common knowledge that a UKPC PCN is £100 , backed up by thousands of signs around the UK and has been the maximum figure in the BPA CoP for almost 12 years, show us one picture in the UK of a private parking sign being higher than £100 because I or we have never seen one , nor a proper NTK PCN letter that is higher than £100 unless somebody like PCL added an extra collection fee onto the pcn

Its definitely not £160, everybody and his dog knows that the added £60 is an additional debt collectors charge that wasn't incurred because their model is no win no fee 

You have learned these facts since the debt collectors letters arrived, plus the court claim, because no original paperwork arrived 

DCB Legal is not a debt collector firm,  its a legal firm , a different section of DCB

LDast

Ikeepgettingfines said:
This point seems pretty strong.  But there is a caveat, as per the P.O.C, it states "£160 being the total of the PCN (s) and damages.  The caveat being I technically do not know what was originally claimed in the original PCN to the driver or on the NtK because I did not receive such letter from UKPC. So, if I do add this paragraph, it would imply that I did receive previous letters as I stated I knew the original PCN is £100.

If you look at the claim form, lower right hand side, you will se the claim amount. That is £160. However, the extra £60 is a fake add on they call "damages". They are not allowed to add "damages" as it is not the original charge as specified on the NtK.

Whatever debt collector or final reminders your received are irrelevant. Only whatever was on the original NtK sent to the keeper applies. You have been informed by us the UKPC NtKs are for £100. Because you have been informed that UKPC NtKs are for £100 and the claim is for £160, they have violated the provisions of PoFA and have therefore breached various CPRs and are abusing the process.

I must point out that all this is probably academic as this is a claim from the intellectually malnourished combo eejits at UKPC/DCB Legal and it will never get in front of a judge, except possibly at allocation stage but that'll depend on which deputy district judge is on the naughty stool that day and how enthusiastic they are about actually reading the defences before allocating them.

Ikeepgettingfines

Gr1pr said:

Its common knowledge that a UKPC PCN is £100 , backed up by thousands of signs around the UK and has been the maximum figure in the BPA CoP for almost 12 years, show us one picture in the UK of a private parking sign being higher than £100 because I or we have never seen one , nor a proper NTK PCN letter that is higher than £100 unless somebody like PCL added an extra collection fee onto the pcn

Its definitely not £160, everybody and his dog knows that the added £60 is an additional debt collectors charge that wasn't incurred because their model is no win no fee 

You have learned these facts since the debt collectors letters arrived, plus the court claim, because no original paperwork arrived 

DCB Legal is not a debt collector firm,  its a legal firm , a different section of DCB

Yes, I know that as a fact.  But I meant, in the court, wouldn't the judge be looking for evidence as to how did I know that the original PCN was £100 specifically.  Am I allowed to state that this is common knowledge?

LDast said:

Ikeepgettingfines said:
This point seems pretty strong.  But there is a caveat, as per the P.O.C, it states "£160 being the total of the PCN (s) and damages.  The caveat being I technically do not know what was originally claimed in the original PCN to the driver or on the NtK because I did not receive such letter from UKPC. So, if I do add this paragraph, it would imply that I did receive previous letters as I stated I knew the original PCN is £100.

If you look at the claim form, lower right hand side, you will se the claim amount. That is £160. However, the extra £60 is a fake add on they call "damages". They are not allowed to add "damages" as it is not the original charge as specified on the NtK.

Whatever debt collector or final reminders your received are irrelevant. Only whatever was on the original NtK sent to the keeper applies. You have been informed by us the UKPC NtKs are for £100. Because you have been informed that UKPC NtKs are for £100 and the claim is for £160, they have violated the provisions of PoFA and have therefore breached various CPRs and are abusing the process.

I must point out that all this is probably academic as this is a claim from the intellectually malnourished combo eejits at UKPC/DCB Legal and it will never get in front of a judge, except possibly at allocation stage but that'll depend on which deputy district judge is on the naughty stool that day and how enthusiastic they are about actually reading the defences before allocating them.

 I love the confidence!  I'll add this point to my defence as you described earlier.  Thanks a lot.

Gr1pr

That would be part of your witness statement and testimony, backing up the defence, you have more to do in several months time, not just the defence 

Ditto with anything else learned in the interim periods, including today 

Ikeepgettingfines

I have updated the wordings to this, in order to try and reflect the scenario further:

2. The Claimant's claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued.  The Claimant's current claim is for £160 which is the total of the PCN and damages as per the POC.  The claim clearly exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges that would have been issued to the driver. The claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. I respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA, CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the defendant for having to defend against this improper claim

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Yep that looks good.

Ikeepgettingfines

Coupon-mad said:

Yep that looks good.

Thanks.  I've sent my defence and i've received the auto-reply as confirmation.

Nellymoser

Wow, the mail problem you experienced in 2018 is still happening in 2024.

Like you many people don't receive 1st/2nd pcn but the £170 payment due letter often manages to drop through letter boxes. PPCs always claim their letters were sent though offer no evidence to prove this. A letter's issue date is not it's sending date or proof the letter was sent.

Since PPCs CHOOSE NOT to provide evidence of their posting date and delivery we must continue to press gov to ensure they do. Please sign/share these petitions.

Require communications from Private Parking companies to be traceable/trackable. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/652355

Immediately Reintroduce Private Parking Code of Practice. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/660922

Thanks. Hope it's a discontinuation or a win for you at court.

Ikeepgettingfines

Hi @Coupon-mad and @LDast,

I received the following email DCBLegal yesterday:

Dear xxxxx.

Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence.If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not.

Kind Regards,  

xxxx

DCB Legal Ltd  

 

LDast

And...?

The 12 point checklist you are flowing from the Defence Template thread already refers to the above.