Thanks, yep Apex/DCM

Hello We had a DMP, the company went under and we had a lot to sort out. We were advised to offer and pay a nominal amount, which we did and have tackled any that came up over the years. In short, we were young, in a mess and had bad advice. There are a couple more that I need to look at too. I have logged in to Cabot using the details on the letter they sent. I think I have been paying Marlin. Payment is now cancelled and I have a CCA ready to post.

Hello I have an old Capital One account and have been paying monthly to Cabot/Resolvecall. I received a letter in November 2023 stating that Cabot are taking over the account and since then letters have become increasingly threatening. I have logged in to my account and I have made monthly payments until March 2023 according to their statements. I have not cancelled any payments since then so am not sure 1) how Cabot have taken over an existing account 2) why payments are no longer being credited. Do Cabot trade under any different names? They are threatening a CCJ, rather than call them I am thinking I need to do a CCA first? Thanks

I have checked my credit file, there is nothing showing as it all very historic. Will update when I receive the papers.

It's been a while! I am home with COVID and this afternoon had a shock call from the courts! It appears that there was a court case, the solicitor was appealing to lift the stay and strike out my defence, he said something about me not sending it to the claimant. All of the information has gone to an old address so it is now adjourned and they will send to my current address for reschedule in 6 weeks time but the Judge said she expects it won't be needed as she has seen that they have now provided the documents that I requested. The solicitor mentioned costs. I am still in shock and there is nothing I can do now until I receive the paperwork. I didn't update the courts about the change in address as I assumed it was over. I am now worrying that I have missed notifying someone else.

Yes, we received an N180

Hi I hope that everyone is coping well We received a message a few months ago about mediation, we called back and there were no slots left so the case went to the courts. We have received a letter today; 1) Unless the claimant does by 4:00 on 19 June 2020 pay the court the trial fee of £25 or file a properly completed application (i.e. one which provides all of the required information in the manner requested) for help with fees, the the claim will be struck out ..... 2) The hearing of the claim will take place on 17th July at X County Court ......... 3) Parties serve and file copy documents by; Claimant 10th June Defendant 24th June I am surprised that courts will be back in person in July but we will get started on the defence statement. Our issue is that we are supposed to be on holiday on 17th July, this is unlikely to go ahead but will let the courts Know anyway.

I had been reading threads and wasn’t clear if I should expect a delay because of Xmas ....... Happy new year!

Its says 28 days and was dated 13th Dec, which would be today.

Hi Should I have heard something by now? Defence was due on 13th Dec, we have received confirmation that it has been sent to the claimant but nothing else. I’m not sure how much the timelines are affected by Xmas.

Yes, defence filed. do I need to send another CPR? Now?

I must have misread in my haste, I have definitely sent postal orders for something previously. Do I need to do anything now?

I followed the same procedure as I have previously, has there been a change? Do I need to send the CPR again?

I posted the CPR to the solicitor last week with a £1 postal order. They have responded today stating that they will not accept my offer of £1 for settlement!!! They've not acknowledged that the CPR request and are saying that I offered a £1 settlement, which I didn't.

Thanks so much, I submitted the defence last night and have posted copies to the company and solicitor. Will keep you posted.

Thank you, I have uploaded photos of the signs. It is a car park I have used frequently and has always had the same terms. I have found a picture of the actual ticket and sign on the day. It does state the reason as not parking without displaying a valid ticket, it looks like 'off-site' might be referring to the name of the car park? Scanbot 12 Dec 2019 20.28.pdf

Thank you I am the registered keeper of vehicle Xxxxx and deny liability for the entirety of the claim. The particulars of the Claim disclose no cause of action on the following grounds: 1. It is denied that the driver of vehicle XXXXXX parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage at Regents Retail Park on 16thSeptember 2018. 2. No contract was formed or agreed between the driver and Local Parking Security Limited. 3. This claim has no course of action against the defendant or anyone else.

Thank you, I have uploaded pictures of the signs; How about; I am the defendant and deny liability for the entirety of the claim. The particulars of the Claim disclose no cause of action on the following grounds: 1. It is denied that the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXX parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage at Regents Retail Park on 16thSeptember 2018. 2. No contract was formed or agreed between the registered keeper and Local Parking Security Limited. 3. This claim is has no clause of action against the defendant or anyone else.

Yes; .The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXX (the "vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the "contract") at Regent retail park (off-site) - Regent retail park, Loughborough, LE11 5PF on 16/09/18 thus incurring the parking charge (PCN).

Could someone please take a quick look at my defence please so that I can send this evening. claim form says off-site but the ticket said not displaying a ticket. No ticket is needed if you are using the retail park.

Will get to the post office now and avoid email. Draft defence, feedback much appreciated; I am the defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim. The particulars of the Claim disclose no cause of action against the Defendant on the following grounds: 1. It is denied that the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXX parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage at Regents Retail Park on 16thSeptember 2018. 2. No contract was formed or agreed between the registered keeper and Local Parking Security Limited. The contract between Local Parking Security Limited and the Landowner which gives Local Parking Security Limited the right to enter into contracts with the public has been requested and has not yet been supplied. 3. This claim is has no legal standing and the case is requested to be dismissed under CPR 3.4.

Can I email the CPR to the solicitor or would you advise to post it? They already have my email as I sent the SAR by email to the claimant and emailed then to request they stop processing the data (they refused). Scanbot_10_Dec_2019_09.34.pdf

Yes, we had a ticket. It was nearly 18 months ago and we heard nothing for a long time so didn’t keep it. they sent those letters in response to the SAR and 5 pictures of the car.

Yes, AOS done. I sent an SAR is that the same? Yes, a windscreen PCN for walking off site. I don’t have any of the paperwork sent previously. In the past when I’ve had similar tickets I was advised to ignore them, which is what I did. not by this site, and many years ago I threw the paperwork away, this is what I received from the parking company in response to the SAR. Am I along the right lines? DEFENCE 1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. 2.The claimant is pursuing the registered keeper on the assumption that they were also the driver. 3. There is no such obligation in law to identify the driver and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument. 4. It is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct. 5. The claimant states that the registered keeper was "off-site" and have been unable to provide details of his this assumption has been made. The defendant used the KFC outlet situated on the site at the time of the parking charge. 6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. No signage is attached to the main entrance of the car park and therefore the driver did not enter any contract with the claimant. (To be checked). 7. Upon inspection of the signs after receiving the charge notice, the signage is unclear, they are located at a distance and placed so high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. The signs do not comply with BPA Code of Practice. 8.Furthermore such is the density and complexity of the text on the sign that the most onerous term – the parking charge – is buried amongst a mass of small print and does not comply with Denning MR’s “Red Hand Rule (to be checked) 9. The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. 10. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will – (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and (b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party. 11. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself. 12.The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters. 13. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity. 14. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff. 15. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery. 16. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing: ''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 ParkingEye 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...'' 17. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged. 18. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused. 19. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover. Statement of Truth: I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. Name Signature Date SAR return.pdf

I will get some pictures ASAP. I hadn’t thought to get pictures as the dispute was about us leaving the site. They sent to response to the SAR today and I did wonder if they had pictures of us etc but they just have 5 pictures of the car within a 15 min timeframe with the sticker on the windscreen. The car park is free for up to 2 hours for customers using the outlets. We were there for around an hour.