TPS ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - Wrong Reg - boddingtons Gt Ducie Street, Francis Street, Manchester, M3 1PQ

[FTMDave]

Have you got proof of payment?

[FTMDave]

Excellent news.  They got paid.  A wrong reg is legally "de minimis" ("the law does not deal with trivialities").

 

It's years since we've seen a PPC try court for a wrong reg case - because years ago when they tried the judges gave them a right kicking.

[FTMDave]

You will show them the proof - just not yet.

 

Let them continue to destroy the Amazon with their daft threats. 

 

If they ever send a Letter of Claim then reply with a version of post 10 here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/450714-cel-anpr-pcn-morrisons-butterfly-walk-car-park-denmark-hill-camberwell-london-se5-8rw/#comments

 

Since this letter was drawn up not one Cagger has been taken to court.

 

Relax and laugh at them for the time being but do come back if a Letter of Claim turns up.

 

[FTMDave]

I've had to hide your post as you left your real name showing.

 

In any case it's a threatagram that you can laugh at and ignore.

[FTMDave]

Read post 9 on your thread.

[FTMDave]

Well done.

 

Obviously you have to change "CEL" in the body of the letter to "Total Car Parks".  In fact as you're writing to the solicitors change "the CEL" to "you and your greedy client Total Car Parks Ltd".

 

Why "Dear Mirlene"?  Shouldn't it be "Dear Yasmin & Jamie"?  https://dcblegal.co.uk/team/

 

Obviously the various "you" have to be changed to "your client".  You are writing to the solicitors remember.

 

Apart from that, fine.

 

At the bottom write COPIED TO TOTAL CAR PARKS LTD

 

Invest in two second class stamps and get two free Certificates of Posting from the post office.

 

[FTMDave]

I would say to ignore but ...

 

... a little worrying is their threat to continue corresponding to your old address. 

 

Perhaps it would be a good idea to send this -

 

 

Dear DCBL,

 

thank you for your letter of XXXXX.

 

The person who best knows where I live is, er - me!  I have informed you and your fleecing client of my new address.  If you have a claim form sent to an address where you know full well I no longer live it will be your client getting hit in the pocket for £275 court costs.  Mind you, that would be their just desserts for being so stupid as to rely on you as their legal representative.

 

What bit don't you understand of "I have of course kept evidence of the parking payment"?

 

You've already told me I would be taken to court in 30 days if I didn't cough up, and now there are another 30 days.  I'm not paying.  I absolve you of the need to wait 30 days - come and have a go if you think you're hard enough.

 

Yours, XXXXX

 

COPIED TO TOTAL CAR PARKS LTD

 

 

However, hang on a couple of days as usual to see if the other regulars have comments.

 

 

[FTMDave]

Get the letter off to save yourself from a backdoor CCJ.  Invest in two 2nd class stamps as that is all DCBL are worth.  Get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

Their are no guarantees but the fleecers are doing everything possible except, er, taking you to court.  It's almost as if they realise their case is hopeless.

If you have time on your hands complain to the SRA about DCBL.  Tell the SRA that DCBL are threatening to send correspondence to an old address of yours, despite being informed of the move, presumably in order to win a court claim by default.

Edited May 27, 2023 by FTMDave
Typo

[FTMDave]

Of course not!

The best thing you can do during "down time" is to read other threads so you familiarise yourself with the court process and realise how hollow these threats are.

The only way your credit score could be ruined is if you lost the court case and then you defied the court and didn't pay within the allowed 30 days and so got a CCJ.

 

Please complete this -

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/393251-received-a-court-claim-from-a-private-parking-speculative-invoice-how-to-deal-with-it-hereupdated-dec-2021/

Edited May 27, 2023 by FTMDave
Typo

[FTMDave]

Is your holiday in the UK?

If so, print out the CPR request now and take it with you, then over the next few days send it from a post office and get a free Certificate of Posting.

Nicked from what dx wrote on another thread -

get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim

type your name ONLY

no need to sign anything

 

[FTMDave]

You mean Monday 5 June, right?

The answer is no, it isn't critical, waiting a week wouldn't be fatal.

However, presumably you already know how to use MCOL due to your other case, so it'd take, what, 10 minutes to do AOS presuming you're OK for Internet and devices.  Plus another 10 minutes queueing in a post office for CPR.  If you can get things moving tomorrow or Tuesday, all the better.  But no, not critical. 

[FTMDave]

Forgot about the Bank Holiday

[FTMDave]

Just put in 20 minutes' work for both tasks tomorrow - then forget about the fleecers and enjoy your holiday!

[FTMDave]

Hope you enjoyed your holiday!

Ten days to go to mine

Remember to file your defence a couple of days before 26 June.

[FTMDave]

They always want without hearing so they can't be challenged on their lies.

We always want with hearing for the opposite reason.

Makes no odds when you file.

 

 

 

.

[FTMDave]

Yep.  When is the deadline for the WS?

[FTMDave]

I hate to be a party pooper but (a) I can't see the other side playing ball and (b) I think to apply to the court for a change of date would set you back £275.

[FTMDave]

Well, nothing ventured ...

There's nothing stopping you e-mailing the court and also DCB Legal (after all they are solicitors rather than TPS who are out to get you).

Go for it.

Just don't hold out much hope.

 

[FTMDave]

I'm at work till 9:30pm UK time but after that I'll have a read through your thread from the beginning and suggest the main points to argue.

[FTMDave]

So you need to prepare -

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS - a brief description of how you got the ticket.

DE MINIMIS - your ace.  You paid.  They suffered no loss.  You have proof.  You told them during PAPLOC about the wrong reg.

KEEPER LIABILITY - they haven't established keeper liability in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  LFI worked his magic in post 35 - use his arguments.

LOCUS STANDI - they are not the landowner.  You asked to see their contact with the landowner that authorises them to bring legal claims in their own name by CPR 31:14 request but they never replied.  You do not believe they possess such authorisation.

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE - CPR 31:14 request was also for proof of planning permission for their signs.  There was no reply and you believe they do not possess planning permission with is a criminal offence.  No contract can be formed where criminality is involved.

DOUBLE RECOVERY - the extra £60 Unicorn Food Tax they have made up.  The arguments are generally the same here for every case.  For a long time we had "a long version" but then someone in an emergency wrote "a short version" which IMO turned out to be better.  Or almost.  So recently I merged the two, and it's below.

DOUBLE RECOVERY

33.  The Claimant has artificially inflated their claim for a £100 invoice to £160.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.

29.  Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio.

An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court V Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practise continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (...) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”

34.  In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

35.  The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.

36.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).

[FTMDave]

How many letters did you send to DCBL?  IIRC it was just the snotty letter and a second letter when they threatened to sue you at your old address, right?

[FTMDave]

Most of these are standard letters with little bearing on whether you owe the money or not.

Personally I'd only include the CPR request (to show them up for being unwilling to produce important legal documentation) and their letter where they threatened to sue you at an old address (to show their contempt for legal procedure).

[FTMDave]

I mean this letter where they threatened to write to an old address, which would have led to you losing the case by default.

DCBL reply to snotty letter.pdf

[FTMDave]

I'll read through the thread from the start and get back to you all.

[FTMDave]

OK, I think I've got there.

In the snotty letter you wrote, you included -

On 04/04/2023 at 23:39, Dave962 said:

Just in case you think you can sneak in a backdoor CCJ, I am formally informing you that I no longer live at XXXXXX but am now resident at XXXXXXX.

Are you saying now this is not right, that you've never moved since you got the ticket?  That the date on the original PCN is the address you still live at?