DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 48050--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debt Collector chase after N244
DIR By: Fatcockney
Date: December 3, 2024, 9:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes and Yes
#Post#: 48074--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debt Collector chase after N244
DIR By: b789
Date: December 3, 2024, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, just to confirm... you never received a Letter of Claim from
the claimant issued through DCB Legal and you also never
received an N1SDT Claim Form issued by DCB Legal through the
Civil National Business Centre (CNBC)?
Anyone else think that this may be a bit of an uphill struggle?
I hope that the court can be persuaded to set aside anyway, in
the interest of the Overriding Objective. A Skeleton Argument
citing VCS v Carr which is due to be heard as a second appeal
may be worthwhile, just in case anyone is not familiar with
this:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ob8hw1062bdaiw8ine4u8/VCS-v-Carr.pdf?rlkey=m33wuz8wjogdz13mbisu69ziy&st=8f2kfarl&dl=0
#Post#: 48078--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debt Collector chase after N244
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 3, 2024, 12:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Anyone else think that this may be a bit of an uphill
struggle?
--- End Quote ---
Potentially - 'judge bingo' might need to play a part. I can
certainly see why a judge might take some convincing that whilst
all prior correspondence was received, both the Letter of Claim
and Claim Form did not arrive.
--- Quote ---
> I hope that the court can be persuaded to set aside anyway, in
the interest of the Overriding Objective
--- End Quote ---
Hopefully.
#Post#: 48080--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debt Collector chase after N244
DIR By: b789
Date: December 3, 2024, 12:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll ask my judge tomorrow what their opinion is.
#Post#: 48098--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debt Collector chase after N244
DIR By: Fatcockney
Date: December 3, 2024, 12:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
To confirm, I never received The Letter of Claim OR The Claim
Form in the post. The document I posted yesterday is the first
time I've seen one of them. I've never seen the other.
This afternoon, received another chase for payment of debt from
DCBL Legal. We already know this will be handled by the court
when they determine a date.
I still have the evidence of the parking tickets themselves,
which were attached to the N244 when I responded to the
Judgement. I never intended NOT to pay for parking. I did pay. I
have tried to engage Euro Parks and DCB over 30 times. Not sure
why those two documents were never delivered, but they weren't.
I will stand behind this all in court because I have no option.
They are totally dismissive of anything I send. I just have to
hope that a judge will see reason on the day. I have kept
everything that has been sent and responded in over three years.
Shows they are determined to chase small debt down.
#Post#: 48105--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debt Collector chase after N244
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 3, 2024, 1:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> In carpark at 11.26
> Paid one hour 11.31
> Extended 2 hours 12.31
> Exited carpark 14.38
>
> That's 7 mins over.
--- End Quote ---
At the moment the focus is on the set aside, but, so that we
don't forget about it...
The car was in the car park for 3 hours 12 minutes, and 3 hours
parking was paid for. It's an overstay of 12 minutes that is
being claimed, not 7. A small difference, but 12 minutes is
outside the minimum grace period of 10 mins.
#Post#: 48107--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debt Collector chase after N244
DIR By: Fatcockney
Date: December 3, 2024, 1:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
ANPR entry at 11.26 paid at 11.31. I can't pay while driving.
Extended at 12.31 for two hours. Surely to god I can't be
penalised for 5 ?mins while I park? Has to be the 7 mins at the
end?? No?
#Post#: 48120--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debt Collector chase after N244
DIR By: b789
Date: December 3, 2024, 2:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think anyone's saying you can't dispute it. The problem
is that you didn't dispute (defend) it in the ultimate discourse
resolution service, the small claims track of the county court.
The problem is going be in getting the CCJ set aside. You have
no argument other than use CPR 13.2 for a compulsory set aside.
You can only rely on CPR 13.3 for a discretionary sent aside and
the judge is going to want to know why you did not respond to
both a PAP LoC and an N1SDT Claim Form sent through the CNCB.
As already advised, simply stating that you never received these
two documents, which were issued by post, by two completely
separate and independent organisations, is going to raise
eyebrows. Whilst responding to the LoC is not an absolute
requirement, responding to the N1SDT is.
Considering you don't deny receiving previous correspondence
from the claimant, how are you able to convince the judge that,
on the balance of probability, not receiving two separate legal
documents sent independently by separate organisations, were not
received?
You can state that whilst you cannot prove having received them,
neither of those two organisations can prove posting or delivery
of them, unless they evidence either a "proof of posting
certificate" or a signature on delivery certificate. At least
that argument may balance any probability decision.
If the judge can be convinced that if the neither the CNBC nor
DCB Legal can prove the letters were posted or signed for and
your claim that you did not receive either, then there is reason
for them to set aside the CCJ under CPR 13.3. You then have to
show that you have a reasonable chance of successfully defending
the original claim.
#Post#: 48132--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debt Collector chase after N244
DIR By: Fatcockney
Date: December 3, 2024, 3:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I can't honestly say. Why would I not respond, having responded
to the original PNC and then 30 other times as well as a SAR. If
I'd received them, I'd have replied. I've just paid £308 for an
N244 to go to court. I could have just paid the debt and not
gone. Reason being I think they are wrong. Yes I might lose but
this isn't right. Even now having gone to where they are, they
are still asking me to provide parking evidence and hounding me
with debt recovery threats. It's relentless. I'm sure they are a
big organisation with loads of cash, but I don't want to lay
down.
#Post#: 48183--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debt Collector chase after N244
DIR By: Fatcockney
Date: December 4, 2024, 2:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok. Been looking back through all my documentation again. Please
understand that this is now over three years and over 30
interactions by letter or email. I hadn't quite understood the
difference between the Claim Letter and Letter of Claim until I
read back.
I DID receive the Letter of Claim on 26 June in the post. I did
reply to that using the online form referred to in that letter.
I did so on 17 July. I did not pay, but in the form (which I
can't access now) I provided this response.
"You have now sent a Letter Before Claim. However, your letter
contains insufficient detail of the claim and, again, fails to
provide the photographic evidence which I requested as long ago
as November 2021. It does not even say what the cause of action
is. Nor does it contain any mention of what evidence your client
intends to rely on, or enclose copies of such evidence.
This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its
pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction -
Pre-Action Conduct, with which as solicitors you must surely be
familiar (and with which your client, a serial litigator of
small claims, must also be familiar). As you (and your client)
must know, the Practice Direction binds 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.
I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending
me the following information/documents:
1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of
POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the
car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose
and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is
being claimed)
5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they
assert authority to bring the claim
6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver
7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font,
height at which displayed)
9. a map of the boundary of the property
10. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what
that represents and how it has been calculated.
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. I will draw to the court
the fact that I have expressly requested this information since
as early as Nov 2021 yet your client has refused to provide it,
saying that it will not do so until this matter reaches the
court.
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"
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page