Claim received from DCB Legal - Claimant UKPC

Harbmeister

Coupon-mad said:

Yes it's mandatory and you can't get around it.  You have ages to return the DQ; well into October.

See the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread which has two links now about compulsory Mediation. 

Thank you I was worried in case in was before 30/9 when we are back. I mis-remembered and though it was something like ten days.

Harbmeister

Should I pursue further for compensation? They have only apologised.

Coupon-mad

I would reply and say you are unhappy with the response.

The complaint is not about delays, it is about the inherent incompetence of the CNBC failing to deal properly with Defendants and defences whilst giving Claimants an auto-destruct button.  No human checks take place when a horrendous bulk litigator clicks the misnomer 'request judgment' (automatic button which should be called: 'gimme auto judgment now').

Nobody in CNBC looks for anything at all.

Nobody checks 'have we missed a defence before we ruin this innocent person's credit rating?' No, because the CNBC staff don't even look at it once a (considered 'scam') parking litigator Claimant hits that button.

The system makes automated decisions. 

That is illegal (see DPA 2018 and UK GDPR).

Kindly escalate this complaint and I expect compensation for distress. Kindly explain why the CNBC has a system which illegally makes automated default CCJ decisions at the touch of a button - by the Claimant themselves - with no human checks or balances.

Ultimately, I'll take up this complaint about the automated button (whereby you positively cede power to claimants, no questions asked) with the ICO but I need to reach impasse with CNBC first.  Escalate the matter please.

Finally I want to know how many complaints like this you have had within the last two years. Complaints from Defendants saying that their defence or DQ has been overlooked.  I request this under my FOI rights so you now have 20 working days to respond.

yours sincerely

Harbmeister

Coupon-mad said:

I would reply and say you are unhappy with the response.

The complaint is not about delays, it is about the inherent incompetence of the CNBC failing to deal properly with Defendants and defences whilst giving Claimants an auto-destruct button.  No human checks take place when a horrendous bulk litigator clicks the misnomer 'request judgment' (automatic button which should be called: 'gimme auto judgment now').

Nobody in CNBC looks for anything at all.

Nobody checks 'have we missed a defence before we ruin this innocent person's credit rating?' No, because the CNBC staff don't even look at it once a (considered 'scam') parking litigator Claimant hits that button.

The system makes automated decisions. 

That is illegal (see DPA 2018 and UK GDPR).

Kindly escalate this complaint and I expect compensation for distress. Kindly explain why the CNBC has a system which illegally makes automated default CCJ decisions at the touch of a button - by the Claimant themselves - with no human checks or balances.

Ultimately, I'll take up this complaint about the automated button (whereby you positively cede power to claimants, no questions asked) with the ICO but I need to reach impasse with CNBC first.  Escalate the matter please.

Finally I want to know how many complaints like this you have had within the last two years. Complaints from Defendants saying that their defence or DQ has been overlooked.  I request this under my FOI rights so you now have 20 working days to respond.

yours sincerely

Sent to them today thank you.

DQ also returned.

Harbmeister

Hi,

1/ Have received a Mediation Appointment (for 2/12). I am quite clear on how to handle the call and will send the DoA so I attend and make it as short as possible. I had used the prescribed text as to why mediation was not suitable.

2/ I have received nil response to my email above, and in particular to the FOI request. The previous email I received gave a 'if you are not satisfied then contact xxx in writing'. Am I to take it that my reply was perhaps not read?
Just looking for confirmation then that I should write to the escalation person now using the same text as in my email response?

Thanks all.

Coupon-mad

I would escalate it yes, nothing to lose.

KeithP

@psh43, is that you @Harbmeister?

Harbmeister

KeithP said:

@psh43, is that you @Harbmeister?

Sorry an old profile.

So on 12th received a response to my escalation with an offer of £50 compensation. Elected to take it.
Response to FOI request was addressed with ‘fill in a SAR’. I will and will report the response once received.

Umkomaas

Harbmeister said:

KeithP said:

@psh43, is that you @Harbmeister?

Sorry an old profile.

So on 12th received a response to my escalation with an offer of £50 compensation. Elected to take it.
Response to FOI request was addressed with ‘fill in a SAR’. I will and will report the response once received.

But a SAR will only elicit information about you, it will not do the same job as a FOI request and you won't get the answer to 'Finally I want to know how many complaints like this you have had within the last two years. Complaints from Defendants saying that their defence or DQ has been overlooked.  I request this under my FOI rights so you now have 20 working days to respond.'

Harbmeister

Hello,
So compiling WS now and that's due tomorrow.
Are there any specific cases for blue badge to quote? Defence (posted earlier) already stated Disability Act etc. should I emphasise? Have a Dr letter which describes the disabled persons lifelong condition.
Also ... have come across interesting content from nadz2018 (same car park same issue) from 2018 but no conclusion to that.
Also ... stuff I shouldn't have in my WS ... car park is retail and free to shoppers.
Thanks...!