Highview/DCBL Letter of Claim now claimform - already appealled twice - Bradfield Road Sheffield

[Nicky Boy]

It's not a case of being "invalid".

The fleecers must sue the driver of the vehicle...

 

Obviously they don't know the driver's name.

If they follow POFA, they have the opportunity to tranfer liability to the registered keeper.

The POFA 14 day rule is just one of many things the fleecers must follow to transfer liability.

 

If they don't comply with the 14 day rule, they can't chase the keeper... Unless the keeper "outs themself" in communicating with the fleecers.

 

Reading the beginning of your thread, it looks suspiciously like you may have done this...

 

"I used this car park to attend a local restaurant (Setti Coli) that we often frequent, I am a regular customer there, and spend a considerable amount of money in there - something i will have to reconsider following your actions.

 

on the evening in question the restaurant was extrememly busy which accounted for the extended stay in the restaurant The car park was empty when i arrived and when i left,  i was not preventing anybody else from using the car park"".

 

... But all is not lost

[Nicky Boy]

Just noticed that this was actually explained in post 7 by FTMDave.

[Andyorch]

Topic open

[s25]

Hi

i completed all paperwork 2nd February 2023, disputed claim and said wanted to contest it. 

The form offered mediation as an alternative and asked me to state if i was prepared to go down this route.

I said Yes i would.

heard nothing at all until last week (14th July) when i received an email stating:

To assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our Client may be prepared to settle this case. I can confirm our Client would be agreeable to £200.80 in full and final settlement of this Claim. The current outstanding balance is £270.80.

Should you be agreeable to this offer, please confirm the same within 7 days. Payment can be made via our website www.dcblegal.co.uk, by calling our office on 0203 838 7038 or via bank transfer:　

DCB Legal Ltd Client Account　　

 Sort Code: xxxxxx　　

Account no: xxxxxxx

Upon receipt of the settlement sum of £200.80 we will update the Court that the matter has been settled. If you are not agreeable, we will continue to follow the Court process as normal.　

 

i responded by stating nothing had changed on my part and i will still be happy to take the matter to court.

does anybody have any suggestions what my next move should be ?

[dx100uk]

should have said NO to mediation. but anyway IGNORE THE EMAIL

you also now need to tell them NOT to use email anymore.(the claimant/sols)

what is the status of the claim on MCOL please

copy claim history here 

dx

 

[s25]

A claim was issued against you on 16/11/2022

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 21/11/2022 at 15:46:13

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 22/11/2022 at 08:06:25

Your defence was submitted on 13/12/2022 at 14:07:50

Your defence was received on 13/12/2022 at 16:05:07

Case Stay Lifted on 18/01/2023

DQ filed by claimant on 18/01/2023

DQ sent to you on 18/01/2023

You filed a DQ on 09/03/2023

 

 

[dx100uk]

good

so do as i say above NOW

reply to their last email

stating 'email is no longer to be use for any communications regarding our mutual claim. Letters only. all emails are blocked/bounced from now on and will be ignored

next up will be the N157 from the court.

i also strongly advise, as has been said numerous time in this thread

you get reading up on PCN claimform threads in this forum.

20+ at least so you know whats to come, whats after that..how to react etc etc.

do not do anything more without checking here FIRST.

dx

[lookinforinfo]

I think you should write back to DCBL  complaining that theirs was the worst attempt at mediation you have ever seen. All they have done is remove the unlawful  £70 claim that will be thrown out of Court should the case get that far.

The maximum they can claim is the amount on the signage so they  are still double the cost  The Judge in the Supreme Court case  of Parking Eye v Beavis said that even at £100  the penalty clause was invoked and that  only their legitimate interest saved them. He carried on to say that anything much over £100 and it would be considered a penalty since the charge was already high enough to cover any further contingencies.

Put it to them that this attempt at "mediation" was no more than a sham to parade before a Judge that you had attempted to avoid Court by offering a reduced price. In reality what you are demanding is a penalty and Judges should be made aware of your puerile attempt at pulling the wool over their eyes.

And include the letter with your WS.