Need Urgent help Please – received a letter from DCBL dated 30/04/2024 received 07/05/2024 – CCJ

Stressed_Out_VG

@Coupon-mad  This is the first letter I received from DCBL on 7th May 2024 (they managed to find my new address after the CCJ was granted).

(Image removed by Forum Team)

Coupon-mad

 

Stressed_Out_VG said:

I think parking charge was orginally £70 but because they kept sending all the letters to my old address and got no response they took it to County Court which then it went up to £197 

and then DCBL took over and it went up to £267

This is the first letter I received from DCBL on 7th May 2024 (they managed to find my new address after the CCJ was granted).

Course they did! They always do.  Absolute abuse of the court system IMHO.

And re the amounts: there we have it

The proof.

The CCJ totals £197.

That CCJ includes an added £20 or £25 unjustified and non-contractual 'fee' that ParkingEye reckon they can get away with these days, after years of not adding any fake fees. Basically, this is their attempt to try to dictate to the Government, IMHO, by saying: "look, we have to add some costs ... blah blah ..."

(NB:
Until 2023 Parking Eye used to add no admin fee when pursuing cases 'in-house'. Then suddenly they added £20. Soon upped it to £25 per PCN. Plucking figures out of thin air it seems.  Nothing about this is on their standard signs, not that putting the extortionate enhancement on the signs somehow makes it OK, of course).

The CCJ is definitely (confirmed by the court service) £197.

But DCB Ltd have said it's £267.

They've added a false £70 admin fee on top of ParkingEye's £20 admin fee.

Stressed_Out_VG please email DCB Ltd a formal complaint and ask for a complete breakdown of every element of the £267. Tell them you will be reporting a concern to the CSA that DCB Ltd has (apparently) lied about the outstanding amount of the CCJ and has added an excessive sum that exceeds the BPA CoP cap and is 'double recovery' because PEye already added a so-called admin fee.

DCB Ltd are not acting as HCEOs (bailiffs) so it isn't an enforcement fee either.

Steve Clark: ... I told you months ago that DCB were adding costs on top of CCJs - a move that looks to a reasonable onlooker to be for their own gain - and which isn't explained by any lawful add-on.

Stressed_Out_VG

@Coupon-mad I will email DCBL.

What do I need to take to the hearing I have this week?  Do I need to create a Skeleton Argument of my WS and a Schedule of Costs?  Does this get submitted to the County Court before the hearing takes place?

Will I also send Parking Eye Ltd the Skeleton Argument and Schedule of Costs along with all the information I emailed the CNBC when I submitted my N244?

Do I need to take copies of anything to the hearing, and if so, how many copies?

Le_Kirk

You only need a skeleton argument if your case is complicated and you want to make it easier for the judge but I have seen skellies on here that are longer than the WS!  If you want to do a bullet point precis for yourself to guide you through the defence and WS, that's fine but it doesn't need to be submitted.  Your cost assessment forms part of your WS but if you didn't do one, you could send it now as a short supplementary WS.

Coupon-mad

Johnersh said:

this instance, 4 letters were issued prior to legal action but unfortunately, ParkingEye received no response. Our original notices outlined the appeals procedure offered by ParkingEye and provided a period of 28 days from the date of our initial correspondence to send any documentation you believe would aid an appeal to us directly. ParkingEye run a dedicated appeals team who consider each appeal on a case by case basis but we note that in this instance, no such appeal was lodged.

ParkingEye thereafter issued a county court claim on 19/02/2024 to recover the outstanding amount.

So despite having the clearest of indications that the defendant may not be receiving their communications they press on with court proceedings.

Be aware that the court rules require them to do checks -CPR 6.9(3). 

So are they really saying they had no reason to believe D had moved and yet they magically did once they had secured judgment? They managed to find D without too much difficulty once there was a judgment. Had they bothered to do the same search prior to commencing proceedings we'd not be in this mess. So they bear some fault in this.  

The onus on them to run checks is (in my view) greater the longer the time period between obtaining an address and the commencement of the claim.

Just to remind you that THIS is what you need to be covering at your application hearing (this half hour is not your defence to the PCN).

Has ParkingEye ever responded to your application and objected to the CCJ being set aside?

What did they say about the BPA Code mandatory requirement to check addresses?

Did PEye claim that they did a soft trace before commencing litigation, given that silence to 4 letters spanning late 2023 to early 2024 easily suggests you had moved ?

Did your WS include:

- proof of the date in Nov 2023 when you moved?

- a link to the version of the BPA Code of Practice applicable in 2023, specifically where it  requires the operator to 'check details' before  (they mean a sot trace, later clarified in a later version of the Code last year)?

- a copy of the DCB Ltd letter which (to a reasonable person) has 'misled' you about the amount of the CCJ by adding an unsolicited £70 - which isn't a HCEO or bailiff enforcement fee and is completely unsupported by any allowed rules. This despite the fact that the £197 already includes an (already unrecoverable) inflated £20 or £25 admin fee added for no reason, which is on no ParkingEye signs?

You won't have had VCS v Carr (because it's new in 2024) so I think a skelly in your case wouldn't be a bad idea to bring that case in, plus a URL link to the 2023-version BPA CoP and attach the DCB Ltd letter to show the £70 + £25 double false admin fees = wholly unreasonable conduct.

Conclusion: that fakery plus the failure to bother to check the address means that ParkingEye should pay all your costs (attach costs Assessment).

Coupon-mad

Hang on, please re-post the DCB Ltd letter but redact whatever ref or name was still showing that caused the ForumTeam to remove it a second ago!

I want that letter for CJC evidence!

Stressed_Out_VG

Coupon-mad said:

Hang on, please re-post the DCB Ltd letter but redact whatever ref or name was still showing that caused the ForumTeam to remove it a second ago!

I want that letter for CJC evidence!

Here is the letter again.  

Stressed_Out_VG

@Coupon-mad

In my WS:

I referred to DCBL's letter on 30/04/24 and it was one of the EXHIBIT's I included when I sent my N244.

3x seperate Exhibit's for POA - Postal Poll Card, Screenshoot of ClearScore Credit Report (which showed my new address as added in December) and a bill from our new internet provider (Bill date 12/012/23) (Billing period: 10 Nov - 09 Jan)

This was in my WS:




This the email I received on 28/05/24 from PE after emailing them the first time:


I then sent PE Ltd the following email on 14/06/24, received no response so emailed again on 24/06/24. I cc'd DCBL in on both emails



I first received a response from DCBL:



Shortly after that PE Ltd emailed me:

Coupon-mad

Despite your first hearing being this week, the following will help, and might get a response straight back:

Reply to the PEye rmail now asking them to confirm that this is the £197 CCJ breakdown:

PCN £70?

Imaginary tacked on admin fee £20?

Court filing fee £35

ParkingEye (in house) capped legal fee £50

Default judgment fee £22

Ask them:

1.  Given the above breakdown (that I have had to work out myself)  already includes a fake £20 admin fee why does your email on 28/5/2024 say "£267 remains outstanding"?  Don't pretend it's a bailiff enforcement fee (it's not) and don't pretend DCB can add a second fake 'admin fee' or damages of £70 (they can't).

2. Kindly attach a copy of the t&cs sign at the location that you contend that the driver contravened, and have you eliminated the possibilities of (a) the payment machine not working and (b) a keying error?  Show me the payment log evidence from that day that you say mean it was not (a) or (b).

3.  Why did you not do a soft trace?  I had moved the same month you issued the PCN and you knew I had not answered your letters so you were required to further check the address. If you did, under my SAR rights I require a full copy of the results of that 'address trace' now, and tell me the date you received it and why you did not contact me (pre-action) at the address that DCB later found easily?

4. Also furnish me with a copy of both sides of the PCN by return. POFA or not?

Yours,

Stressed_Out_VG

@Coupon-mad Firstly apologies my hearing is actually early next week.

I emailed PE on 04/02/25 and got the following response:


 
Today I received the following email 


 
Here is part of the attachment they sent me:







Also part of what they sent me was about the signage but I think this is new as you will see the tariff is now £4 for 2 hours but I have previous bank transactions where it was only £2.60 (I have about 8 tractions between Oct 2022 - Feb 2023) showing the same tariff and therefore this also proves I think that we always made payment when using the car park).