Spring Parking ltd/DCB(Legal) 6 2019 ANPR PCNs claimform - 1-3 Upper Green East, Mitcham, Surrey, Cr4 2pe ***Claim Discontinued***

[brassnecked]

DCBL will have to be creative to challenge this hopefully they might squirm and pull the claim, except its for so large an amount as to allow a High Court application for Enforcement if they won.  Their greed and incompetence should be their undoing in this case.

[FTMDave]

Any update here?

 

Or are they still mulling over how to deal with their utter balls up with the PoCs?!!

[hitman126]

Well, the latest update is that I received a letter from the County Court a few days ago, informing me they'd processed my defence,

notified the Claimant, etc.

 

I then received an email from DCB Legal a couple of days ago, advising me to find attached an Application they'd filed with the court.

Not surprisingly, there was nothing attached to the email and frankly, I've since been too busy to even revisit or bother with it.

 

[FTMDave]

I appreciate you're busy, but this is likely to be an important event in your case.

 

I'd bet they've forked out £275 to apply to the court to amend the Particulars of Claim.

 

E-mail them back and say they forgot to attach the attachment.

 

Long term you need to stop e-mail contact with them but we can deal with that later.

[dx100uk]

Or short circuit them and ask the court for a copy of what they have sent?

[hitman126]

Couldn't get round to provide this update yesterday, but this is what happened after my previous post.

 

I sent DCB Legal a curt reply to their email asking whether there was supposed to be an attachment 

to their email, as I'm actually incensed by the fact they're contacting me directly and I'd appreciate any

clarification on whether this is actually acceptable or in adherence with due process.  By lunchtime,

they'd replied to my email with the below response which also had an N180 Directions Questionnaire

attached. I'll display contents of the N180 right after this post. 

 

Dear xxx,

Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.

 

In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please

find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.

 

Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared

to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and make

immediate reference to this correspondence.

 

If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format)

hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format

in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise,

we will assume not.

 

Kind Regards,

xxxx xxxx
DCB Legal Limited

 

 

 

All, got the N180 attached. I removed the Claim No by the way.

Thanks

 

N180 - Directions questionnaire (Small Claims Track).pdf

[dx100uk]

what does MCOL say about N180's under status?

 

 

[FTMDave]

Good news.  This is not what I expected.  They've obviously been too lazy to read your defence and it hasn't clicked with them yet that they've made a monumental mess-up.

 

This letter is just a standard tactic.

 

Please answer dx's question when you get a second.  

[hitman126]

@dx100uk on the MCOL portal, as at this very minute, nothing regarding an N180 is mentioned under the Claim status summary.

The last entry was the submission of my defence which they confirm receipt on Oct 03.

[dx100uk]

Good, usual tactic, as you've been reading up..you know already..they send it to you only to intimidate and harass. Might not even have been nor ever intend to file it to the court, to make you think things are getting scary...

 

Watch mcol for when it's states the court have sent out blanks to be filled in. .if they ever do 

[lookinforinfo]

Ok

they are trying to show the Court that they are acting in compliance with Court recommendations to do their best to settle out of Court. But the figures they quote are ridiculously high and no one in their proper senses would agree to. 

 

The letter is also designed to scare you into paying before the Court hearing as the  will tell you that in Court if you haven't agreed with their settlement figure and you lose there will be further charges added.

 

Their whole case is a load of c**p and that is not including the five PCNs in one day. Your PCN on the 16th is for a 16 minute overstay. Given that under the  BPA Code there is a minimum of 5 minutes Consideration time and another ten minute minimum grace period when leaving, a one minute overstay is well within those parameters.

 

On top of that the sign you posted stated a £95 charge for a breach whereas their Letter of Claim states £70 which is inclusive of debt recovery costs!!!

 

On top of that, the last two  PCNs are now dated in 2020 and one of the 16th Feb was for parking in a no parking area not for exceeding the time constraints. Heaven knows what errors their next letter will contain.

 

You must email them back and tell them in no uncertain terms that they are not to use your email address again. And that you have now blocked them from using your email. of course after you send the email to them . You then block them. other wise they will send you  an email just before the hearing giving you no chance to possibly understand the contents let alone being able to respond.

[FTMDave]

This is going to be hilarious when they actually do read your defence, realise their huge mistake and try to alter the PoCs.

 

This after lying and pretending to have read the defence and deciding all is OK to move onto DQ stage!

 

I agree with LFI, how about (with bits added to humiliate them later when they realise about the PoCs) -

 

 

Dear DCBL,

 

thank you for your e-mail of XXXXX.

 

I see you confirm your clients have reviewed the contents of my defence and wish to continue with the claim and indeed move straight on to completing the N180.  I note you have already prepared your N180.  You seem to be convinced your case is perfect and you are straining at the leash to go for it.

 

I will of course comply with the Directions Questionnaire when the court orders me to.

 

Regarding your reference to e-mail for communications between us, kindly note that you are not to use my e-mail address again.  I wish all communications to be via Royal Mail.  I have now blocked you from using my e-mail address.

 

Yours,

 

 

If no-one has other comments to add, send this off tomorrow evening.

[lookinforinfo]

After Yours you could add nah nah nah na nana.

[brassnecked]

And for completeness send it to DCBL by Snail mail as well,  a letter with the date in your letter heading with a free proof of posting, then they cannot try to claim they never had or the email was accidentally deleted before they read it, the Letter could be be an exhibit in your WS if needed.  Or produced in court if they did try to send email last minute.

[hitman126]

All, some latest update on the case.

 

So I have just discovered in my inundated Outlook Inbox that DCB Legal also sent another email just an

hour or so earlier, on the day they emailed me with the N180 Directions Questionnaire, last Wednesday

19th October. 

 

Unfortunately, I failed to spot this email until just moments ago, as I was catching up on the nearly 2,000

unread emails sat in my inbox. This email in question relates to their submission of an N244, a copy of

which I have attached here for your perusal.

 

Firstly and in terms of timing, I do hope it hasn't compromised my position in terms of the earlier letter 

that @FTMDave advised I send them last Friday. Secondly, should I be taking any immediate action

on this letter and N244 submission, or should I wait till I'm officially notified by the Court?

 

Thanks

 

PS: As usual, I've masked all personal information from the attached file.

 

 

 

 

N244 Bundle_1.pdf

[FTMDave]

I don't think there's any problem with your earlier reply.  There was just some sarcasm about their usual tactic of saying they want to proceed, plus telling them not to use e-mail.

 

However, this development is extremely important, and a week has been wasted.

 

Can you please post up ASAP what they actually wrote in this e-mail.

Edited October 24, 2022 by FTMDave
Typo

[hitman126]

@FTMDave thanks for the prompt feedback. Kindly find below the exact wording from the email

with the N244 attachment.

 

 

Dear xxxx xxxx,

 

We write further to your recent correspondence.

 

Please see attached a copy of the Application filed with the Court.

 

Both parties must still continue to follow Court directions.

 

If you are unsure as to your position, you may wish to seek your own independent legal advice.

 

Kind Regards,

xxxx xxxx
DCB Legal Limited

 

 

Thanks

[FTMDave]

Thanks.

 

I've flagged this thread up to Site Team members with huge experience in these matters to see if you can oppose the application.

[hitman126]

Thanks @FTMDave

[dx100uk]

Can't read pdf's out sheep herding.

Is this n244 simply to amend their poc?

 

Dx

[brassnecked]

Looks that way DX but no doubt Hitman126 will clarify soon

 

[hitman126]

@dx100ukyep, pretty much so - amend their PoC. 

Below is the full statement they submitted towards the amendment request.

 

The Claimant's Solicitor's ("DCB Legal") case management system ("CMS") suffered an IT malfunction when the Claim was issued, resulting in the Particulars of Claim incorrectly repeating the date of one of the Parking Charge Notices ("PCN's"), rather than listing the respective dates of all PCNs.

 

DCB Legal has analysed the system and has contacted their developers, who are frequently consulted to develop DCB Legal's CMS and is familiar with it's business. DCB Legal is working closely with developers and is taking steps to put further testing procedures in place to prevent such issues occurring again.

 

In the interest of the correct administration of justice, an Order as per the Draft Order is respectfully sought.

 

It is DCB Legal's position that this is the most cost effective, proportionate and just solution for both the Claimant and the Defendant.

 

It will allow the Defendant to fully understand the Claim, if they do not already.

 

Although, it is of note that a Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant prior to a Claim being issued in compliance with Pre-Action Protocol, and that letter correctly listed the PCN dates. Therefore, the Defendant has received full details of the amount claimed in any event. A version of the Claim Form with 'red pen' amendments is attached. 

[FTMDave]

Yes, it is dx, they want to substitute the four repeated dates for four proper dates.

[FTMDave]

The cavalry have immediately answered "Its a procedural application that does not require a hearing pursuant to CPR 17.1 2 b as long as they get the court's permission to amend there is nothing the defendant can do or object".

 

The only consolation is that it has cost them.

 

The court is likely to agree to the change.

 

So you now need to put some work in to undermining each of the six invoices.  If you can prove you were elsewhere during some of the times they quote that would be excellent.

[AndyOrch]

Defendant will be allowed to submit an amended defence (if required) and gain an extra 14 days...not sure why they have included their N180 as this procedure will significantly delay allocation.