2x CCJ's - Civil Enforcement Limited - Private Parking Violation

Coupon-mad

RedOrchid said:

That's a LBC for four x £100 PCNs with four lots of £70 extortion added on top. You can work out the costs addition in that LBC as clear as day. Of course the template LBC response applies.  But not with some of it in bold; it looks odd!

Are these 4 PCNs from the same place / same vehicle / same alleged breach as the CCJ cases already litigated?

If yes, go and search the forum for:

Dear Sirs estoppel Henderson Bank

RedOrchid

I believe I have found something better that you posted a while ago @Coupon-mad!


Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. ############
DCB Legal Ltd.
Claimant: Civil Enforcement Ltd

I refer to your your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - assuming you don't faff about and delay any claim - is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:
[MY ADDRESS]

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".

Don't send me your usual blather about that.

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

1. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, 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?

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

Being legally represented, the prospective Claimant (your client) knows, or should know, that by detaching or allowing to remain detached, elements of alleged debts and issuing separate claims, each which rely upon essentially duplicate particulars and facts, is an abuse of the civil litigation process.  

This Claimant has issued multiple LBCs (Two CJJs already litigated) and indeed, claims relating to parking charges with mirrored facts:

Claim number xxxxxxx - relates to PCNs issued on [DATE];
Claim number xxxxxxx - relates to a PCN issued on [DATE], relying on the same facts
Claim number xxxxxxx - relates to a PCN issued on [DATE], relying on the same facts
Claim number xxxxxxx - relates to a PCN issued on [DATE], relying on the same facts

LBC dated xx/xx/xx - relates to a PCN issued on the Friday, relying on the same facts.

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''.

By the Claimant's negligence or by intent, filing or threatening multiple claims, potentially allowing them to continue to be listed by the courts for separate hearings and then blithely and routinely discontinuing case by case, when each one nears hearing stage and the consumer victim has not 'come to heel' permits of no reasonable explanation.

The Courts and myself will have had to make preparations for separate court hearings, causing unnecessary cost in time and money, and specifically in terms of duplicating the paperwork, intimidation and distress for me as a Litigant in Person.

By filing the first claim and failing to advance their whole case at that time, any cause of action was immediately extinguished for any other similar fact parking charges against myself as Defendant.  The courts may estop a second/third claim where the cause of action is substantially the same.

If you persist, I will invite the court to vacate any subsequently-listed hearings. summarily dismiss the later claims under the grounds of 'cause of action estoppel' and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.  I will be seeking my full costs from the Claimant, whose conduct in the pre- and post-action phases has been wholly unreasonable.

Ignorance of the existence of cause of action estoppel is no excuse.  My research discovered the above authorities and I am just a LiP forced to spend hours trying to get up to speed with a process I had never experienced before until your aggressive client set its sights on me.

By contrast, this is a Claimant and 'legal' firm who are well used to the court process.  The conduct of this Claimant and their legal representatives has been vexatious and when their course of conduct is taken as a whole, it certainly meets the bar set in Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269 which I believe will pave the way for the court to order the Claimant to pay my full costs.

The message for your client is to cease and desist, and if they fail to understand, may I refer them - and you - to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

Yours faithfully,


Would this do the job?

Coupon-mad

Yes. Exactly the one I knew you'd find if you did the search I suggested.

You do need to change the dates of the other claims though and change 'Friday' to make sense!

RedOrchid

Super, thanks @Coupon-mad

I've updated everything and have sent to Info Legal<info@dcblegal.co.uk> which I've already got an automated response that it's been received

RedOrchid

So DCB Legal have replied to my latest correspondence with a very box standard reply, see below: 

Dear [XXXXX],

 

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office dated 23rd August 2024.

 

We now respond to the same as follows.

 

In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, where the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) becomes overdue and before Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be added for the debt recovery fees. The correct recovery fees have been added and will not be removed. As such, the outstanding balance of £170.00 remains payable to prevent further action. The HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration manual’ (VATSC06140), which was last updated on 02 September 2020, confirmed that parking charge notices falls out of the scope of VAT.

 

In relation to the comments concerning damages, the sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by our Client as a result of your non-payment. Our Client’s employees have spent time and material attempting to recover the debt. This is not our Client’s usual business and the resources could have been better spent in other areas of the business. Had you of paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so the amount due would not have increased.

 

Please note that we have been unable to locate the two Claim references including in your email and are therefore unable to comment.

 

You now have 30 days from the date of this email to makepayment of £680.00. 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: [XXXXXX]   
• Account Number: [XXXXX]

You must quote the correct case reference (XXXXXX) 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 atinfo@dcblegal.co.uk. Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038to make payment over the telephone or online at https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.

Should I reply to these people with anything else? 

Coupon-mad

Send them evidence of the two other claims and tell them that cause of action estoppel applies and it's no excuse for a purported 'law firm' to just put their fingers in their ears and pretend they don't understand that legal doctrine.

Tell them as well that you are now reporting DCB Legal to HMRC for 'VAT concerns' because a debt recovery fee IS NOT exempt.

Search the forum for VATSC06140

Obviously that's the search term you need.

RedOrchid

Sent the reply and reported!

RedOrchid

Leaving an update that I contacted CNBC again today for an update on my case and the person I spoke to had no update to give me aside from “it’s taken them longer to get through cases”, anything else I can do in the meantime? 🥲

Coupon-mad

Which one were you asking the CNBC about?

This Claimant has issued multiple LBCs (Two CJJs already litigated) and indeed, claims relating to parking charges with mirrored facts:
Claim number xxxxxxx - relates to PCNs issued on [DATE];
Claim number xxxxxxx - relates to a PCN issued on [DATE], relying on the same facts
Claim number xxxxxxx - relates to a PCN issued on [DATE], relying on the same facts
Claim number xxxxxxx - relates to a PCN issued on [DATE], relying on the same facts
LBC dated xx/xx/xx - relates to a PCN issued on the Friday, relying on the same facts.

RedOrchid

I contacted the CNBC about the two CCJ's which we already put in a defence for back when I first posted this thread, the LBC's are still LBC's and I have not received anything else from them so far!