NSGL Ltd - pcn claimform no. 2 - CENTURY WHARF CARDIFF CF10 5NP. disc'd once - now trying again!!

[Cardiff Devil]

Good morning all.  

 

This is the latest instalment in the long running saga between perhaps the most inept parking company in the country (NSGL Ltd) and myself. 

 

Previously on Britain's Stupidest Parking Operators;

 

Part 1;

 

Thread here:  

 

 

TL/DR:  NSGL manage the parking at a friend's apartment complex.  A family member borrowed my vehicle on a few occasions in 2020 to visit them during the pandemic.  When visiting they parked in the resident's own space with their full permission as the resident does not own a car.  During this time they attracted a total of 7 speculative invoices, 5 of which were overturned at POPLA.  

 

NSGL filed a court claim for the first ticket in January and it proceeded to a hearing in July, where they were roundly humiliated due to their crap signage, and the case was chucked out.   1-nil Cardiff Devil.

 

Part 2;

 

Between filing the first claim and the hearing, NSGL also filed a claim for the second lost ticket at POPLA.  I raised this with the judge after he passed judgement on the first one and he said "I can't enter any judgement on that matter at this time, but the claimant will need to have a long, hard think about whether they're going to pursue this any further."  

 

In October they filed a notice of discontinuance, and the claim was withdrawn.  2-nil Cardiff Devil.

 

Part 3 (today);

 

They've now filed a new claim for the same PCN as claimed in part 2.  But this is where it gets interesting.  The original second claim was for £162, plus court fees at £25 and legal fees at £50, for a total of £237.   This new claim has been filed for (presumably) the same £237, with the court and legal fees added on again, for a new total of £322.  Sounds a bit like double dipping to me.  

 

I'm filing the AOS this morning and sending a new CPR letter to their solicitors but I was wondering if there was a different tack I could take with this one. 

 

Surely if they've discontinued this case previously they can't just file it again for more money a few months later.  Is it worth me putting in a section in the CPR letter asking them to explain how they believe they can include the court fees from their previous discontinued claim to my alleged debt, or is this something to save for my witness statement later on.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks

CD

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

Are you saying this is the same claim as your thread in November? If so, we'll merge them.

 

HB

[Cardiff Devil]

Hi HB

 

Unfortunately not.  The previous thread I started in November last year to deal with the original claim.  I just linked it here for reference purposes.

 

Cheers

CD 

[honeybee13]

Confusing. Well, maybe you should start with the forum sticky about court claims from PPCs and tell us the answers for the current one please.

 

HB

[Cardiff Devil]

Name of the Claimant :  NSGL Ltd

 

Claimants Solicitors: QDR Solicitors Ltd

 

Date of issue – 17th Dec 2021

 

Date for AOS - 4th Jan 2022

 

Date to submit Defence - 18th Jan 2022

 

What is the claim for – N

 

1. The Claimants claim is for an outstanding parking charge issued to vehicle XXXX XXX when parked at CENTURY WHARF CARDIFF CF10 5NP. 

 

2. The site is managed by the Claimant.  The Defendant is the keeper of or the driver named in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom act 2012 of the vehicle. 

 

3. Vehicles parking at the Site are subject to the parking restrictions and terms and conditions which are set out on signs at the Site and form part of a contract between the driver of the vehicle and the Claimant. 

 

4. On 03 07 2020, the Vehicle was parked at the Site in breach of the contract, the contravention being Not Displaying A Valid Permit.

 

5. By entering this contract the Defendant agreed that they would be liable for £80.00 parking charges, plus additional contractual charges incurred by the claimant for the collection of the debt pursuant to the terms and conditions.

 

 

What is the value of the claim?

 

 

Amount Claimed  £237

court fees  £35

legal rep fees  £50

Total Amount  £322

Edited December 22, 2021 by dx100uk
Typo

[dx100uk]

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform

.

register as an individual on the Gov't Gateway Site
Go to HMRC's login page.

Click the GREEN sign in button.
Click “Create sign in details”
Enter your email address where asked.
You will now be emailed a confirmation code. ...

You will now be issued with a User ID for your government gateway account.
 note down your details inc the long gateway number given, you might need it later.
 

then log in to the MCOL Website

.

select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

.

get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim

type your name ONLY

no need to sign anything

.

you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.

………….
 

[Cardiff Devil]

Thanks DX.  

 

AOS was already done.  

 

CPR 31:14 request is being drafted now.

 

Cheers

CD

[FTMDave]

Ye gods, we are used to the stupidity of these companies but here they may have reached a new high (low) for idiocy.

 

Are you absolutely sure it's the same PCN number that they lost at POPLA, then started a court claim for but discontinued, and are now suing you for again?

Edited December 22, 2021 by FTMDave
Typo

[Cardiff Devil]

Hi Dave

 

That's correct.  They didn't include the PCN number in the particulars of claim but I've kept all the previous paperwork and double-checked it against what was sent previously.

 

What's most astounding is the way they've taken the total amount including court fees and legal fees that were added to the previous debt, and essentially added them again.  I actually really hope this goes to court as I'm sure a decent judge would tear them a new orifice for that one.

 

Thanks

CD

[dx100uk]

Ok let it run.

 

If the same paperwork appears for claim2, the discontinued one and all theyve done is add the old claim fees, then thwy cant do that.

 

Be coy for now. DOnt play your cards yet.

 

HavE they sent paploc prior to th3 claim?

 

dx

[Cardiff Devil]

Nothing received prior to this.  The last thing I had from the solicitors was the notice of discontinuance for the prior version of this claim, back in October.

 

Thanks

CD

[brassnecked]

Might be an option when you file the defence,  sday that it appears they are claiming for the same PCN they discontinued the previous case No 000xxx11 as the POC are identical, and they have merely added the sum of the previous legal fees to the new one to inflate the claim.

 

The Team will be mulling this one over in the meantime, it really looks like Extreme Muppetry from the ppc

 

[FTMDave]

Have a think about your aim with this.

 

I'm pretty sure that if you detail their idiocy in your defence, and say complain to the BPA at the same time, that they will run away pretty damn quick.

 

On the other hand if you want to have a laugh and see them waste the hearing fee, then you could file a generic defence and then list their imbecility in your Witness Statement.

 

It depends what you want to gain and how much effort you want to put in.

[Cardiff Devil]

Thanks both.  The CPR letter has gone off today and the AOS is done so I'm not touching this now until after the new year but I'll consider slipping that in the claim defence and see what happens.  If they're stupid enough to pursue it I'll flesh it out a bit in the witness statement later down the line and hopefully see the excrement hit the fan if it gets as far as a hearing.

 

I'm going to have a read through at the BPA's code of practice while I've got some time off over Christmas and see if there's anything in there that can trip them up.

 

Thanks 

CD

[brassnecked]

 Ifyou want to let it run a single line in the standard 3 - 5 line defence, It appears that this claim is a clone of the original claim they discontinued, with the sum demanded amended to include the legal fees and costs added to the original defunct claim.  If they are stupid enough to continue, you can flesh that out nicely at WS stage, and they can't say they weren't warned.

[FTMDave]

Come back to us after New Year.  To get rid of them ASAP I'd thought of something like

 

 

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

 

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

 

3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 

 

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

 

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

 

6.  The Claimant did not send a Letter of Claim before bringing the claim.

 

7.  The PCN has already been the subject of litigation (claim no. XXXXX).

 

8.  The Claimant is claiming double the amount allowed of both court fees and legal fees.

 

 9.  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.

 

 

However, if you want to have a laugh at their expense as BN suggests, then an alternative could be

 

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

 

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

 

3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 

 

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

 

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

 

6.  The PCN has already been the subject of litigation.

 

7.  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.

 

 

The fact they've sued you would be there to the judge's satisfaction, but they'd be likely to miss it and go on and waste time on a WS and money on the court fee.

 

As said before, depends on how much time you want to invest in humiliating them.

Edited December 27, 2021 by FTMDave
Removing my error re POPLA

[Gick]

And you would have a blatantly obvious claim for seeking a costs order for unreasonable behaviour.  £750 in your pocket me thinks.

[brassnecked]

Yes either of those suggestions from FTM Dave are good but even with the first more comprehensive skeleton they might be stupid enough to continue.  Either way if they do progress Gick's suggestion has merit, if they do or don't gased on the fact POPLA Quoshed the PCN, a GDR complaint to ICO,. for unlawfully continuing to process your data as there was no merit in continuing to court twice given the POPLA decision ended the matter so processing from then on was a breach of GDPR, with a Costs order for unreasonable behaviour vis two claims on same PCN, and a GDPR strike would be a double tolchock for their Muppetry.   The other's might have suggestions also.

[Cardiff Devil]

Evening all, and a belated Merry Christmas.

 

There might have been some crossed wires somewhere here, but this claim isn't relating to a PCN that was overturned at POPLA. 

 

There were 7 tickets in total, and 5 were overturned by POPLA, leaving just two. 

 

The first failed one went to a hearing earlier in the year where the parking company lost.  The details of that one are in the thread I linked in the first post. 

 

The second one was also filed as a court claim shortly before the original hearing but after they lost the first case, they chose to discontinue it.

 

Now for reasons unknown to science, they've filed a new claim for that same second ticket, with the amount owed increased.

 

Apologies if I wasn't clear enough in my earlier posts, I may or may not have already consumed a large amount of gin at that stage.

 

Thanks

CD

Edited December 27, 2021 by dx100uk
spacing

[dx100uk]

ok so just confusion that its already been through popla.

 

you stated you've already had a clamform for this and they discontinued, but have now issued a new claimform for an increased sum (the lost claims court fees etc) ....this they cannot do.

 

so just to be 1000% clear, on both the old and the new claimforms the speculative invoice or PCN number in their POC is EXACTLY the same?

 

dx

 

[Cardiff Devil]

HI DX, that's right, this particular PCN did originally go through POPLA but was lost. 

 

I'll have to check the POCs on the new claim form against the original one tomorrow and get back to you but yes, it's referring to the same ticket issued in July 2020.  As I stated previously the first claim for this ticket was for around £160, then with the fees added on it was £237.  This new claim has the amount owing at £237, and they've added court fees and legal fees on again for a new total of £322.  

 

Having read the replies I'm just tempted to go with the standard slimline defence to begin with, then drop the double dipping anvil on them later on in the witness statement if it gets as far as a hearing, then hopefully the judge will tear them a new one.

 

Thanks

CD

[dx100uk]

53 minutes ago, Cardiff Devil said:

then drop the double dipping anvil

 

its not subject to double dipping is it?

that means you visited the same car park TWICE in one day but they've used the 1st time and the 2nd visits exit time.

 

i think you might be confusing the term double dipping?

 

dx

 

[Cardiff Devil]

Hi DX

 

Apologies, I was referring to their trying to claim the court fees and legal costs twice, hence my use of the term double dipping but if this means something else in parking jargon I'll refer to it differently going forwards as I don't want to confuse anyone.

 

Cheers

CD

[FTMDave]

On 22/12/2021 at 10:34, Cardiff Devil said:

the second lost ticket at POPLA.

That's where the gin - or more likely the Perlenbacher - caused confusion.  Apologies, I thought you meant they had lost, not you had lost.  I've edited the part about POPLA in the proposed defence.

 

11 hours ago, Cardiff Devil said:

Having read the replies I'm just tempted to go with the standard slimline defence to begin with, then drop the double dipping anvil on them later on in the witness statement if it gets as far as a hearing, then hopefully the judge will tear them a new one.

Understood.  Methinks you will end up having a great laugh at their expense.  Just double check the date of the PCN in this new claim is the same as the one they discontinued.

[FTMDave]

How did you get on here with humiliating them CD?

 

 

.