Letter of Claim - dcbl on behalf of CCPC

[LJB179]

**Sorry, I cannot attach the photos of the letter until I resize - shall do this ASAP and add**

Hi Team,

I'm in a spot of bother and hear that you're the pros.

Same as many others, I understand from the MoneySavingExpert forums, I received a letter yesterday from dcb legal. I was made aware of an outstanding parking invoice by dcbl last year, when they started sending letters. The actual 'offence' was committed back in 2016 and was for parking outside of my own front door (a sign was put up all of a sudden, stuck onto the actual wall of our flat. I have all of the photos via a SAR that I sent in November 2020. I can attach them also, but wasn't sure if this would take the anonymity away, although I have already blocked out the reg, time, date etc.). Anyway, I have already sent SARs to the relevant parties, so I think that I have all of the information and I am just looking for some advice/guidance as to where to go from here. I've been told that if went to court and lost the maximum fines would be c£200, so it's nothing to really worry about.

CCPC seem to be doing something dodgy. Terry Szmitd was the sole trader of 'Capital Carpark Control', but recently seems to have registered 'Capital Car Park Control ltd', as of August 2020. As such, the claimant on the form is no longer technically correct and my understanding is that a sole trader cannot pass owed debt onto another company? However, I did look this up online and it seems that there is nothing to stop someone from being a sole trader at the same time as owning a ltd company, so does this argument stand? Either way, the email address for CCPC Ltd is the one that I have been conversing with, and whom have my data on file. Should they have informed me that they were going to pass my data from a sole trader to a ltd company, and can they do this, given that on the SAR it says that the data was retrieved from DVLA? I do not really know where I stand on this.

NB. I was wondering whether to write to my MP to explain that this is dodgy, and at the same time, to dcbl etc. however, to my knowledge, apart from the space between 'car park' sometimes being there and sometimes not, I cannot now see anything relating to 'ltd' in my paperwork from either party or on their website, so should we just assume that the old entity is still pursuing it? I also have more photos of the evidence and the SAR, showing that the data was retrieved from DVLA, however, again, CCPC ltd is never mentioned, so I do not know if this holds relevance.

The advice on the MSE Newbies post is below, so my assumption is that, at the very least, I should now email dcb legal to tell them that the case must be put on hold. Would it be to my benefit to wait a couple of weeks to do this, to give me more time to sort everything out?

As well as the SAR to the parking firm's DPO, also write another email, if they are using Gladstones, DCLegal, BW Legal or other solicitor.
Your email tells the solicitor:
(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.
(b) I have sent your client a SAR
(c) also confirm your correct 'address for service' if you've moved and the PPC has two addresses.

Thanks!

[ostell]

And a CPR 31.14 to DCBL. template in the shortcuts page.

Put photos on a hosting site such as imgur and put links on here

[LJB179]

And a CPR 31.14 to DCBL. template in the shortcuts page.

Put photos on a hosting site such as imgur and put links on here

Thanks, will try to do that (have never done it before!).

[LJB179]

**Sorry, I cannot attach the photos of the letter until I resize - shall do this ASAP and add**

Hi Team,

I'm in a spot of bother and hear that you're the pros.

Same as many others, I understand from the MoneySavingExpert forums, I received a letter yesterday from dcb legal. I was made aware of an outstanding parking invoice by dcbl last year, when they started sending letters. The actual 'offence' was committed back in 2016 and was for parking outside of my own front door (a sign was put up all of a sudden, stuck onto the actual wall of our flat. I have all of the photos via a SAR that I sent in November 2020. I can attach them also, but wasn't sure if this would take the anonymity away, although I have already blocked out the reg, time, date etc.). Anyway, I have already sent SARs to the relevant parties, so I think that I have all of the information and I am just looking for some advice/guidance as to where to go from here. I've been told that if went to court and lost the maximum fines would be c£200, so it's nothing to really worry about.

CCPC seem to be doing something dodgy. Terry Szmitd was the sole trader of 'Capital Carpark Control', but recently seems to have registered 'Capital Car Park Control ltd', as of August 2020. As such, the claimant on the form is no longer technically correct and my understanding is that a sole trader cannot pass owed debt onto another company? However, I did look this up online and it seems that there is nothing to stop someone from being a sole trader at the same time as owning a ltd company, so does this argument stand? Either way, the email address for CCPC Ltd is the one that I have been conversing with, and whom have my data on file. Should they have informed me that they were going to pass my data from a sole trader to a ltd company, and can they do this, given that on the SAR it says that the data was retrieved from DVLA? I do not really know where I stand on this.

NB. I was wondering whether to write to my MP to explain that this is dodgy, and at the same time, to dcbl etc. however, to my knowledge, apart from the space between 'car park' sometimes being there and sometimes not, I cannot now see anything relating to 'ltd' in my paperwork from either party or on their website, so should we just assume that the old entity is still pursuing it? I also have more photos of the evidence and the SAR, showing that the data was retrieved from DVLA, however, again, CCPC ltd is never mentioned, so I do not know if this holds relevance.

The advice on the MSE Newbies post is below, so my assumption is that, at the very least, I should now email dcb legal to tell them that the case must be put on hold. Would it be to my benefit to wait a couple of weeks to do this, to give me more time to sort everything out?

As well as the SAR to the parking firm's DPO, also write another email, if they are using Gladstones, DCLegal, BW Legal or other solicitor.
Your email tells the solicitor:
(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.
(b) I have sent your client a SAR
(c) also confirm your correct 'address for service' if you've moved and the PPC has two addresses.

Thanks!

Hi There, apologies for the delay, I didn't realise how easy that would be. Here is the link to the photos - https://imgur.com/a/cjm8ov5

I have been told that this may be a complex case, as at no point have Capital led me to believe that they're now operating as a ltd company, however, it is believed that the original sole trading one may have dissolved, perhaps having been kicked out of the BPA (or a suchlike issue). Any advice on where to go next with this would be greatly appreciated.

[LJB179]

It feels as though there has definitely been a data breach somewhere, and I know that many of these letters have gone out, so I hope that it will come out in the wash. I'm happy to try to be the person that does it, but I do not know how to.

[ostell]

Probably not a data breach, he is still acting as the sole trader and therefore can employ debt collectors or solicitors to handle. He must be running short of cash as this is the second of these I have seen in the past week.

You also require images of the signs that created the alleged contract.

Photo of the signs might help

when you get the PCN post it see if they get POFA correct

[LJB179]

Probably not a data breach, he is still acting as the sole trader and therefore can employ debt collectors or solicitors to handle. He must be running short of cash as this is the second of these I have seen in the past week.

You also require images of the signs that created the alleged contract.

Photo of the signs might help

when you get the PCN post it see if they get POFA correct

Thanks, I have all of this as I submitted a SAR a couple of months back - I just wasn't sure whether or not this was OK to post online in-case it takes anonymity out of it (I have, of course, blanked out the registration of my car etc.). I can add it though and send a link? I have a close-up of the sign and one of the car parked close to it. But the bays are not marked etc. They literally stuck the sign onto the side of my apartment building.

[LJB179]

The guys on MoneySavingExpert suggested that I go hell for leather on this, contacting the ICO, DVLA and BPA to check that everything is as it seems. I should mention that the email address I was in contact with to do the SAR was the same as the BPA lists as being the one for the ltd company. I do not know if that has any significance. Can a sole trader and ltd company hold the same email address and data? Do they not need, under GDPR rules, to disclose this to the person whose data this is and the DVLA (who they first received it from - this is mentioned as the source of their data on the SAR declaration)?

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/mar...ol-Ltd-/171970

[ostell]

Yes, they can use the same email address, there is no "ltd" in it so no hint of impropriety.

I think you will find that the claim is from the sole trader so there is no GDPR problems there

Post up the redacted PCN you received but leave dates, and the signs

[LJB179]

Yes, they can use the same email address, there is no "ltd" in it so no hint of impropriety.

I think you will find that the claim is from the sole trader so there is no GDPR problems there

Post up the redacted PCN you received but leave dates, and the signs

Here you go - these are just the photos, I have now downloaded the full SAR, just need to anonymise them. I note that they refer only to the driver being responsible, not the keeper.

https://imgur.com/a/ebutASu

[LJB179]

The guys on MoneySavingExpert suggested that I go hell for leather on this, contacting the ICO, DVLA and BPA to check that everything is as it seems. I should mention that the email address I was in contact with to do the SAR was the same as the BPA lists as being the one for the ltd company. I do not know if that has any significance. Can a sole trader and ltd company hold the same email address and data? Do they not need, under GDPR rules, to disclose this to the person whose data this is and the DVLA (who they first received it from - this is mentioned as the source of their data on the SAR declaration)?

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/mar...ol-Ltd-/171970

And now all correspondence, very badly redacted by someone using an online PDF tool (sorry in advance, but please do let me know if I have left anything on there that I shouldn't have).

https://imgur.com/a/lA4ALoy

Cheers.

[ostell]

So what was the date of the event? It's been redacted out.

Nice to see those signs. Prohibiting signs:

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. To claim that a contract was created is perverse when it was especially forbidden. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

Who does the land belong to? Is it by any chance part of your flat and mentioned in the lease?

[LJB179]

So what was the date of the event? It's been redacted out.

Nice to see those signs. Prohibiting signs:

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. To claim that a contract was created is perverse when it was especially forbidden. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

Who does the land belong to? Is it by any chance part of your flat and mentioned in the lease?

Where did you get that statement from, is it from the cases you have referred to below it? It does belong to the landowner, however, I could not find it mentioned in the lease. More than happy to share the lease too if you're interested in having a look through. Just FYI, I have taken the photos down but shall put them back up shortly (I forgot to blank out my name on one of them).

[ostell]

The statement is one I collected and modified some time ago but still holds true. It will be used in tour response to the LBC as well as any POFA fails.

Did they ask for permission to attach the sign to, what I assume, is your wall? Counterclaim for damages perhaps

[LJB179]

The statement is one I collected and modified some time ago but still holds true. It will be used in tour response to the LBC as well as any POFA fails.

Did they ask for permission to attach the sign to, what I assume, is your wall? Counterclaim for damages perhaps

Unfortunately, it was my landlord who owned the building, so I guess he could do whatever he wanted?

Someone on the MSE forum also mentioned that is the initial ticket was put on my window on 11th November, then with the second notification being not until Jan 5th, they were later than the required 56 day gap and therefore could invalidate the whole thing. Do you agree?