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

[FTMDave]

What date was the SAR distress claim issued?

 

I ask as if you could apply for judgement before tomorrow it would give the fleecers even more to think about.

Edited December 20, 2022 by FTMDave
Error corrected

[FTMDave]

Right, so tomorrow before the mediation hearing go on MCOL and see if you can apply for judgement, and if you can, obviously do so.  This should only take a few minutes, one way or the other.

 

1.  If you can, tell the mediator you have a court judgement against Spring Parking, not an ongoing case, an actual judgment, with a CCJ and bailiffs imminent, but you will consent to set aside if Spring Parking will drop their case.

 

2.  If you can't, do as already planned, tell the mediator you will drop your ongoing case against Spring Parking if they will drop their ongoing case.

 

It's important you take this as a laugh, don't expect to get anywhere, Spring Parking will be too stupid to represent themselves and will have solicitors doing it who won't have a clue about your claim.  Your objective is to waste their time, get them to waste money paying solicitors (after presumably money has been wasted changing the PoCs), sow disaccord between them and their solicitors as they won't have told the solicitors about your SAR claim, etc.

 

Once they refuse to withdraw, tell the mediator the matter is over with and end the call.

 

Whatever happens, you need to come across as a badass who will cost them money all the way during the legal process.  It's people like you you they drop cases against.  Although, realistically, with nearly a grand and a half at stake, they will push this all the way to a court hearing.  

[hitman126]

Morning All.

Thanks for the great feedback

 

 @FTMDave. Been up early and already on the MCOL website from where I can confirm the

SAR Claim issue date to be 05/12/2022.

 

Does that fall outside of the deadline to enable me trigger that Judgment which I can do immediately?

 

The wording on the Claim Form states that:

 

"You must respond to this claim form within 14 days of the day of service (or particulars of claim if served separately)

The attached forms may be used for that purpose. The day of service is taken as 5 days after the issue date shown overleaf."

 

I guess we can probably scrap any plan to apply for Judgment on the SAR claim this morning, as I've just

been reading through the Notice of Issue letter sent to me by the court and it says........

 

Your claim was issued on the 5th December 2022.

The court sent it to the defendant by first class post on the 5th December 2022 and it will be deemed to

be served on the 10th December 2022.

The defendant has until the 24th December 2022 to reply. 

 

Just got the call from the mediator............

 

Made it clear to him, I'm willing to abandon my SAR claim if the Claimant drops his claim.

 

He's off to consult the Claimant and I'm now awaiting his call back.

[brassnecked]

You never know, they bite bite your hand off as you are too much trouble now.

[Nicky Boy]

The suspense is killing me

[hitman126]

Well, he just called. Apparently, the dossers can't reach their representative or whoever else it is, to seek

their advice or opinion on how to proceed on the back of my proposal. The mediator therefore says he'll

refer the matter back to the court and then they take it from there.

[Nicky Boy]

Their loss!

[hitman126]

10 hours ago, FTMDave said:

with nearly a grand and a half at stake, they will push this all the way to a court hearing

 

Well, that's nearly a grand and a half of my hard-earned cash which they haven't sweated with me to earn, but now want to take it off me. Not a chance !!

 

It's not as if I used a paid car park where I failed to pay and thereby cost them some revenue, or even got them to lose money one way or the other.

 

This car park is free to use, albeit with time restrictions. How does an overstay (if at all) cost the parking company any loss of revenue to justify the

obscene monetary claims they demand? 

[hitman126]

1 hour ago, hitman126 said:

Your claim was issued on the 5th December 2022.

The court sent it to the defendant by first class post on the 5th December 2022 and it will be deemed to

be served on the 10th December 2022.

The defendant has until the 24th December 2022 to reply. 

 

I'll make sure I prepare a nice little Xmas pressie for them on Christmas Day, when I apply for that judgement. 

They want a battle, they'll certainly get a war from me.

 

By the way, if I get confirmation DCB Legal/Spring Parking deliberately presented me with a falsified claim form

with those crossed out and handwritten PCN dates, can that be deemed some form of contempt or deception

towards the court process? Would be extremely grateful if any legal experts here could advise on this. 

[Nicky Boy]

Just been reading through the thread again...

I understand that the fleecers must apply to DVLA for keper details for each and every PCN / NTK issued?

 

Just a thought that with a "serial offender" like Hitman they might have saved themselves the cost and trouble to do this.

 

Might it be worth Hitman dropping a line to DVLA to ensure an enquiry was made for EVERY PCN?

[hitman126]

Well, so after what seemed an eternity on the phone, I finally managed to get through to the MCOL Service Desk and an advisor confirmed the following:

 

1. On the 10th of November 2022, DCB Legal requested for some forms to enable them amend the original Particulars of Claim. Nothing has since been received by the court from DCB and so the PoC on their system and as far as they're concerned, remains "as-is".
2. As standard procedure, if and when an amended version is even submitted to the court, a court judge is then required to adjudicate and approve or reject the proposed amendment.

 

 

I can safely conclude that the PoC with those handwritten amendments that DCB Legal emailed to me, were sent to me under false pretences.

 

I'll be ensuring that this little detail forms part of my armoury for what lies ahead.

 

Checking through my emails, I've just noticed that DCB Legal sent out that "amended" PoC to me on 19th October 2022.

 

This implies that it pre-dates the day they are alleged to have contacted the court for the amendment forms. Will cross-check that 10th November date again with the court, in case that advisor got it wrong.

[FTMDave]

Well done on all this work you're putting in.

 

You dealt with mediation perfectly.  You were never going to get a result.  But you'll have made another hole in the fleecers' wallet.

 

I like your plans for Christmas Day!!!

 

1 hour ago, hitman126 said:

1. On the 10th of November 2022, DCB Legal requested for some forms to enable them amend the original Particulars of Claim. Nothing has since been received by the court from DCB and so the PoC on their system and as far as they're concerned, remains "as-is".

Very interesting.

 

That means at the moment they are pursuing an absolutely hopeless case where they are suing you for the same invoice five times.

 

Nicky Boy's idea is excellent.  The template is at  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/409717-letteremail-to-contact-the-dvla-to-see-who-has-been-requesting-andor-accessing-your-data-registered-owner/

 

[brassnecked]

Yes the original POC is fatal to them anyway, so any way to get it disallowed will be good. They are well on track to lose it for themselves.

[hitman126]

So I did contact MCOL yet again and another advisor confirmed that DCB Legal did indeed submit an application to amend their original PoC.

However, this initial application had been done via email (which isn't the court's required procedure) and as such, the court rejected it outright

and advised them via an email reply to submit a new application via post.

 

To date, the court's not received any feedback or response from DCB Legal on this matter.

[brassnecked]

If they don't bother or try email again then they are sunk.

[FTMDave]

This is all excellent news.

 

Best to let sleeping charlatans lie then.

 

They presumably missed the e-mail back from the court and/or have forgotten after to deal with the rubbish PoCs.  The more they faff around the more the court are unlikely to agree to their request.

 

This is an unexpected Christmas present!  Of course they may wake up and get the PoCs changed, but as it is they are heading for a court hearing with a ridiculous case where the same invoice is included five times!!!

 

[brassnecked]

If the don't manage to get it changed, one might add rather than double recovery, of the Unicorn Feed tax, they are going straight for Quintuple Recovery with five claims on same invoice.

[FTMDave]

Recent posts moved to the SAR case thread  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/454456-loc-to-spring-parking-for-failure-to-supply-sar/page/3/

 

[FTMDave]

On your other thread you have a successful judgement against the parasites for not replying to the SAR.

 

Now that is fine, and highly embarrassing for the fleecers - but the original idea of the SAR was not to end up suing the charlatans, but rather to get your hands on their damn PCNs.

 

I don't really know what to do.

 

You could pursue DCBL, but we all know why we shouldn't prod that particular sleeping bear.

 

I'm thinking maybe another LoC, sent to Spring Parking at their "new" address, for a second period of distress, emphasising that they can bring these legal claims to a halt quite easily by simply replying to your SAR, might do the trick.

[FruitSalad1010]

It is not unthinkable to submit another claim, perhaps this time for an amount of money which will elicit a proper response and following a letter before claim.

Right now Spring Parking are in the position of having denied OP their statutory rights in exchange for a default judgment awarding a small amount of money which OP does not intend to enforce.

Not a bad position to be in particularly if the data they are withholding will significantly affect the outcome of their current claim against OP.

While it would no doubt increase the risks involved and increase the likelihood that Spring Parking defend the claim, a larger claim might wake them up, as well as be enough that OP would be interested in enforcing any judgment.

It is important that claimant's on the receiving end of a breach of their statutory rights by disorganised organisations prove their distress, however it is not unthinkable that any distress is compounded by Spring Parking's complete failure to engage with the dispute.

Edited January 13, 2023 by FruitSalad1010

[FTMDave]

I wasn't really suggesting that the OP really start a second claim, as it would just be money down the drain.

 

Rather I was thinking that faced with the threat of continual court action v simply printing out 6 PCNs, they might finally do the latter.

 

How about something like the following, sent to both Arkleigh Mansions and Cranbourne Gardens where one of the directors presumably lives and where they would be terrified of the arrival of bailiffs.

 

Changes from the first letter in bold.

 

Letter Before Claim

 

To Whom It May Concern

Re: VRN XXXXX, Claim No. XXXXX

 

On 26th September 2022, I sent you a Subject Access Request for a statutory disclosure of my personal data under the Data Protection Act 2018.

 

You have failed to comply and are therefore in breach of your statutory duty and obligation under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). 
 

This dereliction of duty has caused me a great deal of distress, exacerbated by your failure to provide me with the requested information to enable me to understand the issue at hand and further compounded by the necessity for me to pursue you to obtain this disclosure. 

 

I already hold a County Court Judgement against you for distress caused until 15th November 2022 for £200.

 

You now have 14 days to pay the me the sum of £400 for distress caused for the period from 16th November 2022 until 16th January 2023.  In case of no payment I shall begin a County Court claim against you.

 

These court claims will go on and on until you satisfy my Subject Access Request.  County court bailiffs can already be involved.  I would remind you that at the point of £600 High Court bailiffs with much wider powers can be asked to enforce.

 

Although you have no defence to the distress caused by your failure from 16th November 2022 until 16th January 2023, I undertake to not proceed with the claim if you satisfy my Subject Access Request by 20th January 2023 - i.e. that is the date I want your letter to drop through my letter box by.  You have already had umpteen chances.

 

Yours,

Edited January 13, 2023 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[brassnecked]

Looks a decent option FTMDave If they carry on as they are the value of the claims for non compliance will exceed what they think they can squeeze out of Hitman126

[hitman126]

On 13/01/2023 at 15:09, FTMDave said:

Now that is fine, and highly embarrassing for the fleecers - but the original idea of the SAR was not to end up suing the charlatans, but rather to get your hands on their damn PCNs.

 

So, just for my understanding and clarity, should Spring finally get round to supplying the PCNs in question plus all related

personal data in their possession as per the SAR, how does that data help towards my defence of their original court claim

which is the ultimate goal?

 

Is the entire idea to look for things like:

1. Discrepancies on the PCN's that render them invalid?
2. Whether the PCNs were compliant to statutory regulation?
3. Whether the PCNs even exist in the first place?

 

[hitman126]

On 13/01/2023 at 23:41, FTMDave said:

You now have 14 days to pay the me the sum of £400 for distress caused for the period from 16th November 2022 until 16th January 2023.  In case of no payment I shall begin a County Court claim against you.

 

@FTMDave is this £400 for distress you're proposing, an additional demand being made personally to Spring Parking (and not via a County Court claim), or have I misunderstood you?

 

I'm a bit unclear on how its originated, especially as your letter goes on to state that in the event of its non-payment, a new County Court claim would be initiated.

 

[FTMDave]

5 hours ago, hitman126 said:

Is the entire idea to look for things like:

1. Discrepancies on the PCN's that render them invalid?
2. Whether the PCNs were compliant to statutory regulation?
3. Whether the PCNs even exist in the first place?

All three.

 

We've seen two of them.  The other four might not even exist.

 

One of the major mistakes that private parking companies often make is to get the invoices to the motorist more than 14 days after the event.  In those cases they cannot use the Protection of Freedoms Act to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. 

 

The fleecers are suing you for six invoices.  That is the whole basis of the claim.  We need to see the invoices.

 

It will be very difficult to defend a claim in court if you don't even know what the claim is for.