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

[FTMDave]

Yes, please upload the LoC when you get a minute.

 

It turns out the other case I mentioned was also DCBL and I think I'm beginning to work out what has happened here.  But let's see the LoC.

[brassnecked]

Yes they must be called to account as if they won on the dodgy POC, likely they would be knocking in their HCEO incarnation as the Channel 5 Can't Pay Guy's and add eye watering fees to the judgment if it wasn't paid.

[FTMDave]

Can we see the LoC please?

[dx100uk]

On 26/09/2022 at 13:20, brassnecked said:

Yes they must be called to account as if they won on the dodgy POC, likely they would be knocking in their HCEO incarnation as the Channel 5 Can't Pay Guy's and add eye watering fees to the judgment if it wasn't paid.

 

they cant 'just send bailiffs' even over the £600 HCEO threshold, the high court must be approached and assign them.

[brassnecked]

True DX, but with such an amount they would likely do just that if the judgment was for the fleecers for full amount.  Its unlikely that they will get such a judgment in this case though.

[hitman126]

Thanks once again for all your support, Gents.

Managed to edit the LoC and strip out some personal and other revealing details.

 

Attached is the LoC.

letter_of_claim-merged.pdf

[FTMDave]

The Letters of Claim are what I expected after remembering chinoky's thread  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428866-capital-car-parkdcbl-claimform-chandlers-avenue-barge-walk-greenwich-peninsula-se10-0pe/  which is also DCBL.

 

The PPC were after chinoky for invoice A, invoice B & invoice C.  The Particulars of Claim were for invoice A, invoice B, and, er, invoice B again.

 

In your case they are after you for invoice A, invoice B, invoice C, invoice D & invoice E & invoice F.  The Particulars of Claim are for invoice A, invoice B, invoice B, invoice B, invoice B & invoice B.  See the pattern?!

 

In chinocky's case they blamed the error on rubbish software, which I ridiculed at the time, but they may well have useless software which can't deal with more than two PCNs and thus these huge mess-ups for their clients.  Long may it continue!

 

I've looked it up and PoCs can only be changed if the other party agrees (DCBL asked chinoky who obviously ignored them) or with the consent of the court (presumably after paying a £275 fee).  It wasn't worth them paying the fee in chinoky's case.

 

They may pay the fee in your case or they might discontinue the claim for these two invoices and go after you for the remaining four.  We'll see.  All conjecture at the moment.  The important thing is to file the prepared defence on 3 October.

[FTMDave]

However, two things.  Why are you ignoring these Letters of Claim?  The fleecers partly send LoCs as a fishing exercise.  If someone doesn't reply, the fleecers reckon they might have moved and they might not reply to a claim form either, giving them an easy default win.  It's always much better to reply at that point.

 

Secondly, together with your other thread, you've had seven invoices for the same car park.  Obviously we're on your side against the vampires, but if you get such a huge volume of tickets eventually a judge will rule some of them as valid.  You're lucky that DCBL have such rubbish software!  Isn't it just easier to follow what is written on their daft signs and save yourself the bother?

[hitman126]

@FTMDave thanks. All points are acknowledged and well-noted.

 

However, if there was one thing I'd strongly refute,

 

it is the claim that I regularly tend to stay beyond two hours at the car park in question.

 

I could stake my last dime on this being a false claim, but sadly, I don't have the benefit of a camera or any other form of evidence to back my argument, so I tend not to even argue the point.

 

My typical Saturdays are extremely busy, highly mobile/on the move and with lots of personal engagements, be it at home or away from home.

 

Therefore, the suggestion that I'd even stay in any particular car park for over two hours, has me scratching my head.

 

I just couldn't afford that luxury on a Saturday of all days.........and on a regular basis too.

 

I can assure you, there's absolutely no reason why anything in or around the alleged premises would keep me parked there for over two hours.

 

There's no shopping mall and barely anything of interest to keep one there for that length of time, on a frequent basis. 

 

Aside the Better Gym where being a member I used to visit on weekends and whose members were entitled to use this very car park (and by the way as a personal policy, one hour was always my maximum workout duration),

 

I cannot for the life of me imagine how or why I'd stay on those premises beyond two hours. 

 

With the exception of a medium-sized Morrisons supermarket, the only other notable shops or businesses around those premises (Superdrug, Lloyds Bank, Boots and Farmfoods) are very small branches.

 

Aside the two Morrisons and Farmfoods branches, I barely ever visit any of the others anyway.

 

All this has me wondering whether they're not making this claim based perhaps on two separate visits to that car park on each given date,

 

where they've paired the time of my first entry (let's say 2pm) with the time of my exit of a later visit (let's say 5:30pm).

 

Judging by how they've gone on to botch the Particulars of Claim and the revelation by @FTMDave about their possible use of some dodgy software, would this be too far-fetched a thought?

 

I just pray for the day when all of these wretched private car park companies would be outlawed for good and we can have some peace at last from all their exploitation and outrageous practices.

 

[dx100uk]

Well they will have to produce each ANPR PCN and each must have in and out pictures at WS stage 

 

 

 

 

[brassnecked]

The times on those PCN's might be very interesting, if you can prove or show reasonable cause that you were elsewhere, that might give them a problem

[hitman126]

@brassneckedspot-on!! Was entirely my initial thought too.

Only, there's the small and almost impossible matter now of trying to trace back my whereabouts more than three years ago.

[FTMDave]

@hitman126very interesting, it hadn't clicked with me that this could be "double dipping" (description of visiting a car park twice and the fleecers' useless cameras treating them as one long visit).

 

The problem here is that £1370 is a lot of money and I would guess - it is only a guess - that when they realise the Particulars of Claim are wrong they'll fork out £275 to get them changed.  I can't see this easily going away. 

 

I see you've got the PCN dates, but they are not the dates of the actual parking.  Once the defence is filed on Monday I think it would be a good idea to SAR the vampires and get sight of every single one of the PCNs.  Obviously you won't be able to remember what you were doing in 2019 but you might for example have bank records showing proof of purchases elsewhere. 

 

It could also be that there are more of these invoices in the pipeline.  Let us know straight away if any others turn up.

[hitman126]

Well said, @FTMDave.

I have access to lots of my bank statements, electronic and hard copy. I'll go through them asap and see what it reveals.

 

By the way, I received a reply to my CPR 31.14 request from DCB Legal yesterday. Kindly find it attached.

dcb_legal_reply_cpr31.4.pdf

[FTMDave]

Standard response.

 

However, this will help you later down the line in your Witness Statement.  You'll be able to say that when you asked to see proof of planning permission and of a contract with the landowner giving the fleecers the right to sue under their own name - they refused to supply such evidence.  You believe neither of these important legal permissions exists.

 

That's if it gets that far.

 

They will not be happy next week when you defence rolls up.

 

D-Day is Monday for defence and a SAR to the vampires.

 

 

 

 

[hitman126]

@FTMDaveI was actually planning to submit my defence on Sunday night.........or should I perhaps leave that till Monday evening/night?

 

Regarding the SAR, I already sent that out to Spring Parking, same day as I mailed the CPR request to DCB Legal.

[FTMDave]

Yes, by all means submit the defence on Sunday.  Write exactly what is drafted on the previous page.  You need to humiliate the other party over the rubbish PoCs.

 

The MCOL site often has maintenance work done on it over the weekend, so don't worry if it doesn't work on Sunday - it will on Monday.

 

Can you confirm which date exactly you sent the SAR?

[dx100uk]

No good ever filing defences etc on a w/end, courts close at 4pm fri. Won't be registered till Monday 

 

But anyway your defence is not due to/by 4pm Tuesday 

 

Dx

[hitman126]

Both SAR and CPR requests were sent by recorded delivery on Monday 26th Sept. 

[FTMDave]

OK, so the fleecers have a month to respond.

[hitman126]

By the way, this weekend, I managed to obtain pictures of the parking signs around the premises

of the land in question and have a couple of them attached.

 

Hopefully, they might have some flaws that can be incorporated into in my defense statement. 

Thanks.

 

 

pixs.pdf

[FTMDave]

The signs that are there seem clear - but there aren't very many of them.

 

Usual PPC MO - post a few signs up, hope no-one will see them, so they have an excuse to issue their invoices.

 

Get your defence in tomorrow! 

 

File it exactly as prepared.  Extra stuff such as their rubbish signage will go in your Witness Statement later down the line.

 

 

[hitman126]

Will definitely be submitting that defence statement before close of business today @ 4pm.

 

By the way, this is just a personal thought, but are there any official channels for Joe Public to challenge current legislation on how parking companies should be operating, etc?

 

I ask because I personally find it rather exploitative and deliberate that they use these ANPR devices to constantly hound motorists,

 

when for instance local authorities continue to invest in parking meters which issue you with tickets to stick on the window or windscreen of your car, but more importantly, provide full visibility of any parking time limits you're bound to.

 

Thanks to these stick-on tickets, how many motorists in the past can we all recall rushing back to the car to "top-up" at the parking meter and then head back to carry on with their shopping or other activity, when they realised their parking duration was nearly up? Countless..........but at least fair to the motorist!!

 

And if you failed to return to "top-up" and were given a ticket, you had little cause to dispute it because the evidence was there in black and white and available to all parties, including the motorist................

 

unlike these ANPR devices which are available solely to the parking company, but we're required to acknowledge their "evidence" as gospel.

 

What's there to prove these parking companies do not manipulate these ANPR devices (entry and exit times, etc) for their own ffinancial benefit?

 

After all, we all know how speed cameras, etc, have for years been purposely used as a money-making tool for many a council/local authority, so what's there to prove parking companies aren't installing these ANPR devices influenced

purely by similar money-making motive?

 

Why not use parking meters where the motorist could park, pay and have full visibility and awareness of any parking time limits to be adhered to?

 

Today, there are even parking apps like RingGo which allow you to park, pay and/or top-up remotely without being anywhere near the vehicle or parking machine, or even having to rush back to obtain a new adhesive ticket for the car windscreen or window.

 

I personally think the use of these ANPR devices by parking companies to monitor vehicle entry and exit times is abhorrent, unethical and sneaky,

 

especially in light of the current financial crisis we're all facing and they're simply installed to entrap and exploit the ordinary motorists for financial gain.

 

I for one would strongly lobby for them to be completely abolished for the

aforementioned use by parking companies, if I had any such influence. 

[hitman126]

All done.

Just submitted my defence statement on MCOL successfully, in the last couple of minutes.

[FTMDave]

Well done.

 

This should be fun when DCBL realise how badly they've messed up the Particulars of Claim.

 

As for your other points.  Well the government started the process of regulating the vile industry in 2019 and then published a code of practice in February aimed at stopping the worst practices.  Predictably the fleecers have acted like the CoP doesn't exist and are currently challenging it legally on two points.