Capital Car Park/DCBL claimform - Chandlers Avenue, Barge Walk, Greenwich Peninsula SE10 0PE

[brassnecked]

Driver or Keeper looks like not compliant with POFA,  either or can't try to sue same person as both.

[chinoky]

I just phoned Greenwich London Borough council. They confirmed the Greenwich Peninsula is NOT owned by Port of London Authority and it is within their borders.

I also tried calling the Port of London Authority to confirm but this went straight to answer machine after the switch board transferred me over.

 

i have uploaded the PDF again. Please check this one.

 

Thanks

 

[BankFodder]

I'm posting very quickly, first of all to say that we've received a generous donation from you and I've replied by email to say thanks.

Second thing – I haven't done more than scanned very briefly through the thread – is that I understand that you are being sued for more than £600.

Just to warn you – as I did in the email to you – that a judgement over £600 can entitle the judgement creditor to transfer up to the High Court and have the judgement enforced by sheriffs. Sheriffs fees can be quite extortionate and can easily add thousand pounds to the judgement some.

I really hope that you don't lose the case – but if that happened, then you should ask the judge for instalments immediately – and you should do everything you can to reduce the sum – and paid off if at all possible. You do not want to have High Court enforcement fees added to it.

I'm sorry if this unsettles you or puts the frighteners on you – but I think it's important to warn you, and anyone else who happens to look at this thread about what can happen if a judgement for more than £600 is transferred up to the High Court.

Thanks very much indeed for the donation and good luck

[chinoky]

Thank you for your reply admin. Win or lose I wanted to contribute towards this site.

 

I've been stuck in some horrible sticky situations in the past. When i had no where to turn to for advice, this site has always helped me pull through.

 

I will fight this claim. If i don't win, i will settle by instalments. 

It seems to me they added one of the PCN twice to get it over the £600 mark. What a awful thing to do for profit.

Edited November 10, 2020 by chinoky

[BankFodder]

I hope it doesn't come to that – but if you do lose then you will have to ask the court to order instalments. If they're not ordered by the court then there is quite a chance that DCBL will simply decide to crush you in retaliation for the trouble you have course them by going directly to the High Court enforcement officers.

So if you do lose, make sure that you speak up and point out to the judge that you are unable to pay immediately and you would be grateful if an instalment order could be made – and then you should suggest instalments of, say, £50 per month – if you can manage it.

The other side won't like it, but the judge might think that there is a reasonable proposal and go along with it

[FTMDave]

13 hours ago, chinoky said:

my partner told me a car park but she meant parking bay.

 

By this do you mean you weren't driving that day, but your partner was?

 

Also BF has quite rightly pointed out the dangers of you being sued for over £600 and what to do were you to lose in court.

 

That said, these thickos have already done so many things wrong with their inflated claim that I can see a judge being very, very unimpressed by their abuse of the court procedure, and the odds of your losing are tiny.

 

This does of course depend on your putting the work in & building up a case against the crooks - and you're doing superbly so far 

[brassnecked]

If they are suing the Keeper, and your Partner was driver, and they haven't complied with POFA  they are opening a whole world of pain  for themselves with the admin charges aka Unicorn Feed tax that magically helps to put it above the £600, as if suing Keeper, those charges are inapplicable as can only apply to driver, so are as per OPS Judgnment abuse of process. just needs a look at the events as they unfolded, and what was said and done, up to the claimform.

[chinoky]

 

Good morning all,

 

Thank you all for your replies. It is very helpful.

 

The driver wasn't me that day and I am the keeper. I have been spending a lot of time reading through other people's thread regarding county claim forms and trying to get familiar with the process.

 

When i receive a response from the CPR31:14 letter i sent. Will it have all the chain of events leading up to the claim form?

 

 

[brassnecked]

I wouldn't wait on the CPR, they might not comply in time for your response to the claim, you need to formulate a 3 line defence that casts doubt on their action the WS goes into the detail of the hows & whys their POC is pants.

[chinoky]

Ok thanks, that will be my next step.

 

I will start a draft defence to counter their PoC

[brassnecked]

Less is more at this stage, just simple rebuttal, like if no Pofa suing as keeper a no no can't imply keeper is/was driver if keeper can't include the "DCBL admin charges" in the claim, plenty in other threads, and the Team will help direct you.

[FTMDave]

1 hour ago, chinoky said:

The driver wasn't me that day and I am the keeper

 

Excellent news.  Yet another own goal from Capital.  If it actually gets to court you can point blank deny being the driver.  They're suing the wrong person, have been too lazy to use POFA to establish keeper liability and as BN said are now even deeper in the mire re the Unicorn Food Tax.

[chinoky]

Its good to know their legal team haven't been too diligent in this process. 

 

If there are any particular threads i should focus on reading, please forward them my way.

 

Thank you all again, i really can't express enough how grateful i am.

 

 

[FTMDave]

If you want to see how judges consider these inflated charges, and also have a good laugh at the PPCs' expense, have a read through the attachment in the first post at

 

 

[brassnecked]

Especially from Paragraph 66 of that Judgment regarding the Administration charge, 2 of which are in the claim against you as Keeper.

 

The Admin charge is £70 per letter so unfair and abuse of Process as per para 68.

[chinoky]

Afternoon all.

 

Today I received the response back from their legal team.

 

I'm not sure what to make of it.

 

Response:

We write further to your request pursuant  to for CPR31.14 dated *****.

 

CPR 31.14 (1) (a) allows a party to inspect a document mentioned in the statement of case 

However, nowhere in the claimants PoC are the documents listed in your email mentioned. Accordingly, the provisions of CPR 31.14 do not apply, and you are not entitled to inspect the document requested.

 

Should you be insured of your legal position, you may wish to seek independent legal service.

 

Any advice on what to reply (if I need to). 

 

Thanks everyone.

 

 

[dx100uk]

std reply in many threads here already get reading up.

pcn claimform

 

how have these muppets got your email?

you should NOT be using email!!

 

[lookinforinfo]

Typical DCBL. What you asked for is to prove that there is a contract with motorists which they will need to do in Court. The fact that they haven't sent you those details is probably because they don't have them all. It strengthens your case by not including them. 

[dx100uk]

CPR is a request it's not legally binding, though failure will of course be mentioned in your witness statement IF the claim gets that far.

 

their WS will have to include copies of all documents the claimant intends to rely upon .

[chinoky]

I've never replied to any of their letters and definitely didn't email them. It must be a generic template.

 

Should i pursue this CPR 31.14 in another letter or leave it for now if it counts against them later on?

 

Thank you all.

[dx100uk]

its only a request they are not legally obliged to respond......

said this twice now.

 

 

[chinoky]

Apologies, I get a bit anxious when i see these letters.

I'm still trying to read through other threads and get a better understanding.

 

 

 

[chinoky]

Hello all,

 

I have started a draft defence. I tried to keep it simple and after much editing, i've ended up with this. Any suggestions would be warmly appreciated.

 

1. The registered keeper was not the driver on the dates provided by the claimant.

 

2. It is denied that the registered keeper parked at Chandlers Avenue, Barge Walk, Greenwich Peninsula SE10 0PE  at the times mentioned in the Particulars.

 

 

3. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all."

 

 

4.  It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability.

 

5.  The Defendant has added additional amounts to the claim to try to circumvent limits on legal costs in an abuse of court procedure.

 

 

 C

 

[FTMDave]

Looks good to me.  Point 3 is very generic and covers just about everything, and that's the way to go, less is more for the time being.

 

This car park company will be in for the shock of their lives when you fight back, suing for the same ticket twice and all the Unicorn Food Tax will seriously rile a judge. 

[chinoky]

Thanks for your reply. I will leave it as it is and submit it closer to the defence deadline.