Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - bishbashbosh

Pages: [1]
1
I will bet you £100 that this will NEVER reach a hearing. DCB Legal NEVER go as far as a hearing is the claim is defended. Their MO is to take this as far as allocation to your local county court and then discontinue just before they have to pay the £27 trial fee. They work on the assumption that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and can be intimidated into paying out of ignorance and fear. If you don't, then they move on to their next victim.

I won’t take you up on that bet. This sounds about right from what I can see and have learned along the way. I do very much appreciate all your assistance here and, having not been through this exact scenario before, your confidence is reassuring against the niggles of doubt I sometimes have. Stay the course!

2
One question, is it *likely* that signalling a desire to have the case heard will result in a hearing? Obviously, it’s understood that signalling this opens up the possibility.
It increases the chances of a hearing, which is one of the reasons it increases the chances of them discontinuing.

If you opt for an in-person hearing and they proceed, they'll have to spend the money to send someone to your local county court to argue their case. If you agree for the case to be heard on the papers, this suits the claimant, as their solicitors can simply submit written evidence and have the matter decided by a judge without them having to turn up.

In other reading I’ve done on the matter, mediation is often described as the eventual endpoint.
Mediation is only the endpoint if both parties agree to a settlement, which, given your position is that you owe nothing, is unlikely.

This makes sense. Thanks.

3
Many thanks. I have not received anything from MCOL or via post just yet. Expect it this week.

One question, is it *likely* that signalling a desire to have the case heard will result in a hearing? Obviously, it’s understood that signalling this opens up the possibility.

In other reading I’ve done on the matter, mediation is often described as the eventual endpoint. Is the challenge to have it heard an attempt to put paid to their lack of specific documentation, I.e. to call their bluff? I’m just trying to understand the logic behind this strategy.

4
Thanks again for your previous help. The above was sent and we’ve been awaiting a response. Received the attached email from DCB Legal under the heading “Bulk Litigation” (which is humorous in some way). Form N180 was also attached.

I assume this is part of a last ditch effort to achieve a settlement; having already been paid and instructed by Smart Parking they have every incentive to continue on. They never provided any evidence that they had followed POFA in regard to keeper liability etc. as their claim did not specify their intended course of action. Any advice other than to play out the string?


5
Thank you.

7
Guide: Posting Images

Thank you, my searches didn’t turn that up.

8
Please show us the claim form, with personal details, the claim number and MCOL password redacted.
I don’t seem to have permission to upload photos.

9
Sent the email above. Now in receipt of a Claim Form. Planning to acknowledge service etc. via MCOL.

10
Thanks, will do.

11
@bishbashbosh, please start your won thread if you want advice. You would need to show us the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) you received from (not so) Smart Parking. However, if the LoC is from DCB Legal, you can just use the one you've shown above as they will issue a claim whatever you send them.

Understood. I don’t have it. So, shall I respond to their LoC again requesting a copy?

12
@bishbashbosh, please start your won thread if you want advice. You would need to show us the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) you received from (not so) Smart Parking. However, if the LoC is from DCB Legal, you can just use the one you've shown above as they will issue a claim whatever you send them.

Here it is.

In receipt of an LoC from DCB Legal on behalf of Smart Parking after several letters from DCBL were ignored. The alleged transaction took place in 2021 and I cannot recall any  details of the event. No NtK was delivered that I know of, but this may be due to a move of house around the time of the alleged incident and DVLA not being properly updated. Understood that this is not a defence.

Research and advice provided elsewhere indicate that Smart Parking were not in the habit of complying with POFA at that time so a defence based on their inability to establish keeper liability is the best course of action. Responded by email to the LoC using a template found elsewhere, affirming the identity of the keeper and their lack of obligation to name the driver, and referring to VCS v Edward 2023 as the basis for the PoC’s inability to infer liability.

POFA was not specifically mentioned in the reply, and after seeing a response in another thread here which does address Schedule 4 directly, I wish I had said something more direct about it.

In your experience, is there any point doing so at this stage, effectively replying to the LoC twice, or is any response pro forma? I.e. is it best to just wait for them to proceed to claim and use the elements of your template response at a later stage?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

13
@bishbashbosh, please start your won thread if you want advice. You would need to show us the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) you received from (not so) Smart Parking. However, if the LoC is from DCB Legal, you can just use the one you've shown above as they will issue a claim whatever you send them.
Will do, thanks.

14
Victory. Thanks very much for your help and for this site in general. In addition to your response to the LOC that I sent, I also sent a complaint, essentially using a template I found on this site. I just received this from (not so) Smart Parking.

Good Morning,

Thank you for your email.

We can confirm that the parking charges have been cancelled, therefore no further action is required.

The debt recovery agency has been advised accordingly.


Kind regards,

 

Smart Parking Limited


Would you be so kind as to link to the template or point me in the right direction?

15
You need to respond to the LoC with the following by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and also CC yourself:

Quote
Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

I was the hirer of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged contraventions, but I am not and have never been the registered keeper. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the hirer or keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C].

If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me liable as keeper or hirer, they are unable to do so. I have received no Notice to Keeper or Notice to Hirer from Smart Parking at any time. Your client has failed to comply with the strict requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, including the mandatory provision of a copy of the hire agreement and a statement of liability. Even if your client were to issue or re-send these documents now, it would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to establish keeper or hirer liability.

Furthermore, the alleged contraventions date back over three years, and I have received no communication from Smart Parking prior to the recent demands from DCBL. This excessive delay is prejudicial and undermines the credibility of the claim. It is entirely unreasonable to expect any individual to recall specific details of vehicle use from over three years ago, particularly in the absence of any contemporaneous notice or evidence.

As your client cannot pursue me as driver, keeper, or hirer, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g).

Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1(a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. Copies of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK), Notice to Hirer (NtH), and any other documentation your client intends to rely upon in support of its claim, including but not limited to correspondence with the hire company, evidence of compliance with POFA Schedule 4, and any contemporaneous notices or photographs 
2. An explanation of the cause of action 
3. Whether they are pursuing me as driver, keeper, or hirer 
4. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 
5. What the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated 
6. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract 
7. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract 
8. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details 
9. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) 
10. A plan showing where any signs were displayed 
11. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention 
12. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added 
13. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT? 
14. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully, 
[Your Name]

Newbie with a similar situation, I.e. an LoC by DCB Legal on behalf of Smart Parking for an alleged incident in 2021. Research elsewhere has lead me to believe that it’s likely that Smart Parking didn’t comply with POFA regarding the NTK. I sent a response based on a template shared elsewhere before finding this one, which I think is rather better in that it goes to the heart of the PoFa issue by name among other things. The template I used did refer to VCS vs Edwards, which seems to be the bedrock of these defences.

In your experience, is there any point to responding to the LoC with a second letter or should I simply hold fire and use the arguments you’ve shared at a later stage?

Pages: [1]