Secure Parking Solutions / DCB Legal Claim x 2

Hamish_123

If you wouldn't mind taking a cursory glance over the below, just to check my point is being made correctly? 

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXX

I refer to your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists".

I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this net or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

Further to the above, I'm also requesting that this PCN is combined with PCN number XXXXXX that I have also received paperwork for at my address. This debt is also disputed and I have no known knowledge of any debt. The reasons for which are explained below;

Cause of Action estoppel

DCBLegal's solicitor will be aware that by detaching (or allowing to remain detached) elements of alleged debt - or series of alleged debts - and issuing separate claims, each which rely upon essentially duplicate particulars and facts, is an abuse of the civil litigation process.  The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same as another filed by the same claimant and should you or your client subsequently file more than one claim, I will apply for the second action to be struck out, with my full costs being borne by your client.  

Your clients have already issued notice of intention to claim so they are estopped from subjecting me to a 'drip, drip' form  of harassment with more claims based upon duplicate or similar facts that should have been brought to court in the first instance.

In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”

In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:

(i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence, or error;
(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

Remove this which makes no sense to 'request' and there are no "reasons" for dispute below!

"Further to the above, I'm also requesting that this PCN is combined with PCN number XXXXXX that I have also received paperwork for at my address. This debt is also disputed and I have no known knowledge of any debt. The reasons for which are explained below;"

Just state the other PCN number where you talk about cause of action estoppel.

Tell them to put up (both PCNs in one claim) or shut up.

Hamish_123

Email sent and automatic reply received.

Will await the court papers   

Thanks again @Coupon-mad

Hamish_123

Interesting response received today to my email sent this week;

"Dear XXXXXXXX,

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office dated 03/09/2024.
We now respond to the same as follows.
We acknowledge you state you also have a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) referenced XXXXXX. Please note, this PCN is currently with our Sister Company, DCBL.  
We are currently instructed regarding the PCN referenced XXXXXXX. 
The PCN was issued as the vehicle, XXXXXXX was parked at King Street Dudley DY2 8PX unauthorised. The signage on site stipulated, ‘All permit details must be clearly visible inside the front windscreen at all time’. Please see attached. As evidenced by the images of the vehicle attached, a permit was not on display at the time of the contravention. Therefore, the vehicle was not authorised to park on site. This is a clear breach of the Terms and Conditions. As such, it is our Client’s position the PCN was issued correctly. 

Our Client applied to the DVLA for the details of the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle. Your name and address, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX were provided. Our Client therefore correctly issued correspondence to you at that address. Please see attached. Having not received payment, address verification was carried out prior to the Letter of Claim being sent. Your new address, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX was located and as such the Letter of Claim was issued to you at the traced address. It is your responsibility, as the Registered Keeper, to ensure the DVLA is kept up to date with your current address at all times.   

Please note the timeframe in which to appeal the PCN has expired. You were given the opportunity to lodge an appeal when the initial Notice was issued to you. Given that the case has been escalate to this firm for recovery action, the time to appeal has now elapsed and payment of the PCN is now required. 

Pursuing a legally owed debt is not harassment. You may wish to seek independent legal advice in this regard. 

The Terms and Conditions of parking would have made it clear that a PCN may be issued in the event that there was any breach of those terms. Usually this is set at £100 and should be paid within 28 days. However, there is an option to pay a discounted figure of £60.00 if prompt payment was made within 14 days. 

The PCN was not paid within the prescribed 28 days or indeed at all. In view of this the sum of £70.00 is also claimed as a contractual cost pursuant to the Contract which states: ‘Further debt recovery charges may be incurred if the parking charge remains unpaid after 28 days’. The £70.00 contractual cost is not inclusive of VAT. 

We acknowledge your request to have this file put on hold for 30 days in order for you to seek your own independent legal advice regarding this PCN. This file will now be put on hold for the 30 days requested. After this, payment of the outstanding amount of £170.00 will be expected. Failure to make payment will result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference. 

Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -

• Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account     
• Sort Code: 20-24-09     
• Account Number: 60964441
  
  You must quote the correct case reference (XXXXXXXXXX) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.
  
  We would ask that you kindly furnish us with your most up to date telephone number, this can be emailed to us at info@dcblegal.co.uk.
  
  Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to make payment over the telephone or online at https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.

 Kind Regards, 


Louise"---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Along with the email, she also included some extra photo's that were not displayed on the NTK that was originally issued (one of which is attached - the others are very similar to the ones displayed on the NTK but taken at slightly different angles). I wondered if this is all the images they hold of the event and as such have they now shared their entire evidence with me? 

Annoyingly they have also refused to combine the two PCN's so am I right in thinking that I will need to go through the same process when the next PCN progresses or are they likely to discontinue both if a discontinuance was to occur as they are both sited as the same "breach of terms and conditions"?  If not I could of course pursue the Cause of Action estoppel route. 

Seems a pretty cut and paste email response to be honest, the difference in fonts is a bit of a giveaway. 

Also, if required by anybody else, her email address is louiseb@dcblegal.co.uk

Coupon-mad

Wait the 30 days then in the first week of October write and tell her:

Regarding this answer:

"Please note, this PCN is currently with our Sister Company, DCBL.  
We are currently instructed regarding the PCN referenced XXXXXXX."

I don't care and I take no 'note' of that drivel excuse.  I guess trainee paralegals at roboclaim debt solicitors like yourself just don't understand any legal doctrines outside of the tick-box steamroller bulk litigation you embarrassingly think is the law.

You have no choice: YOU MUST consolidate the PCNs because they involve the same parties, vehicle and location and the PCNs turn on the exact same facts.  It is irrelevant that one case is currently sitting on the next desk along at your 'bailiff' arm.

Talk to your client and amalgamate the files. Maybe ask Steve Clark. Coupon-mad says hello...

I suggest you seek legal advice from a real solicitor if you don't understand cause of action estoppel and are clueless about the potential for you lot to abuse the court process.

Tell you what, how about saving the court fee and discontinuing now?  You and I both know DCB Legal will discontinue in 2025 anyway, so put up (both PCNs now) or shut up.

Hamish_123

Had great pleasure sending this email this morning. It feels good to fire a few shots in reply to their usual threats sent via letter. 

Thanks again @Coupon-mad

Will be interesting to see the response...

Hamish_123

So they’ve responded to say that they won’t be combining the PCN’s as they are for different vehicles 🙄 So it looks like I will have a second claim to defend at some point. At least I’ll have my defence and everything ready! 

Coupon-mad

Reply and point out the vehicle is irrelevant and clearly they know you are the same data subject, being pursued by the same clueless parking firm about the same meritless facts, same location and baseless cause of action.

It would double the unreasonable conduct to continue to belligerently refuse to consolidate these duplicated matters into one claim.  Tell them to stop playing games. 

Hamish_123

Further update. 

I sent a further email detailing the above suggestions that has not been responded to. I have today however received a second LOC from DCB Legal in relation to the other PCN. I’m now preparing to email them stating that there is now no reason why they can’t be combined as the second claim is no longer with their “sister company”. 

Wanted to check in with you guys first in case you had any recommendations for things to mention at this point? 

Thanks as always. 

Coupon-mad

Please can you change the awful thread title?! Sorry but it's distracting on the thread list and doesn't help us know what your case is about.

Re the email to send to DCB, search the forum for:

Sirs detach elements parking Henderson estoppel