DCB Legal LTD issued a claim again

Eminowa

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82135180#Comment_82135180

I am not sure now if I pleaded. Its a long time ago now. I dont work there anymore.

Yes, imagine if the driver had changed address, they will be having a CCJ next to their name just for a parking charge. This car park has not even got a facility to pay.it for staff only

Eminowa

I was an agency nurse. I was blocked booked during the covid period as the bed pressure was over the roof and many permanent staff caught covid and were off sick. Majority of the staff working then were mostly agency nurses. I parked there all the time and ended up with 3 tickets which i made a photocopy and gave to the security staff at the hospital then and they promise to sort it out. But here we are..i am going to court for it

Coupon-mad

"i am going to court for it"

But you aren't because they'll discontinue. This is what the anti-consumer business model is:

• frighten and intimidate lots of people at pre-action threatogram stage into paying £510 (for 3 PCNs) or - more commonly - £170 for one PCN, despite that being double recovery and expressly banned by a triple whammy combo of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, ParkingEye v Somerfield 2011 and ParkingEye v Beavis 2015, which certainly did cover 'the costs of enforcement' contrary to the industry's spin about Beavis not dealing with debt recovery;
• frighten and intimidate lots more people to pay a lot more than the statute & case authorities allow, when a court claim arrives;
• manufacture a shedload of default CCJs by chasing years-old charges and sending claims to old addresses, and by fabricating an enhanced quantum to £510 instead of £300, the claim plus court fees exceeds £600. This means, had you failed to defend this claim and got a default CCJ, DCB group have their own HCEOs who would have come to clamp your car one morning or frighten and intimidate your household and look to list your goods to sell (and we've seen DCB add another £200 which hugely exceeds the maximum first visit HCEO bailiff fee cap of £75 but nobody stops them);
• all the while having no appetite for hearings and knowing full well that their arrangement with ParkingEye is to discontinue the small % of defended claims and run away scot free, cashing in on all other claims because it's a numbers game seeking out the weakest consumers.

DCB Legal run these cases on a no-win-no-fee basis and are playing what I would call a champertous game of 'maintaining' claims in which they have an overriding financial interest (in your case, three x £70 has been artificially added to share with the client when they achieve payment).

There's a fairly large number of quite recent binding case law about 'champerty and maintenance' - whist no longer illegal except in Scotland - being a dubious and questionable practice under circumstances where law firms stand to gain improperly, by using an unjustly enriching bulk legal MO where they stand to make a lot of money from claims where they have an unhealthy direct monetary interest.

The CMA should look at this MO used by DCB group (specifically how it works and exactly what % proceeds are shared with clients like Parkingeye, Smart Parking & Euro Car Parks where these are really old debt books with very old addresses for defendants, and none appear ever to be intended to go to hearings).

The MHCLG don't appear to understand why champerty & maintenance might be a problem, consumer protection wise. Despite the fact it's still illegal in Scotland.