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

[FTMDave]

The law is changing with the publication of a government Code of Practice, but the fleecers are currently challenging it legally on two points so it's not something to massively take into consideration for the moment.

 

The action you need to take now is the same as in the previous claim against you.  You're already registered on MCOL so the first thing to do is acknowledge service.  dx100uk will be on soon to remind you of the rest.

 

Had you received correspondence regarding these PCNs before?  As there are so many of them you should have received at least 25 letters.

 

We certainly need to see all the PCNs - if you have them - to work out what they are accusing you of and to see if they have bothered to follow POFA when sending out their demands.

 

What address is on the claim form for the fleecers? - i.e. have they issued it themselves or used solicitors?

 

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

3 hours ago, hitman126 said:

 I believe the deadline for it is Wednesday 21/09

Spot on.

 

Try to do AOS today if you can, it's never a good idea to do these things at the very last minute.

 

Watch out that there is often maintenance work being done on MCOL at the weekend, if it's having a hissy fit today there's always tomorrow.

[FTMDave]

I can't believe you're taking a week off between posts when you're being sued for nearly one and a half grand.

 

Such a large number of invoices will be difficult - but not impossible - to defend against.  You need to get into action.  I think the deadline for your defence is 4 October.

 

For a start get a CPR request off like you did with your other claim.  To DCBL.  That's why i asked on 15 September which address was on the claim form.  This should have been done when you got the claim form.  Get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.  If there's still time today better, if not on Monday.

 

Also get the six original invoices uploaded.  Don't bother at the moment with reminder letters, the important things are the original PCNs to see what they're suing you for and if they have respected POFA.

 

 

[FTMDave]

I've had to hide your post because you have left the fleecers' reference number shown on every single upload.

 

We don't really need to see the reminder letters.  It's the original PCNs that are the most important (see attachments).

 

Have you got any other of these? 

 

I see they are for overstaying a free 2-hour limit.  Did you really overstay five times on 16 February?  I'm wondering if the fleecers have messed up and are suing you for the same invoice several times.

2019.02.02_pcn_letter.pdf 2019.02.16_pcn_letter.pdf

[FTMDave]

Regarding the timescales, they're fixed by law so can't really be changed.

 

Don't worry, the defence is virtually always the same and generic to cover all bases.

 

Even if they reply in a month all info will be useful for your Witness Statement later down the line.

 

CPR to the solicitors, SAR to the fleecers.  Stick some ID in with the SAR otherwise the fleecers will use lack of ID as an excuse not to comply.

 

Please upload the other four PCNs - if they exist - when time permits.

[FTMDave]

Understood.

 

So the letters headed Parking Charge Notice like in my post above - not the reminder letters - have you only got two of them?

[FTMDave]

That is superb news.

 

In your other thread you refer to the parking company as vampires - I like that, we can add it to our list of ways to unflatteringly describe the charlatans.  Not only are they vampires, they are extremely stupid vampires. They are suing you five times for the same invoice.  We can include this in your defence and utterly humiliate them.  The court will be appalled by such behaviour.

 

Even if by some horror you were to lose this  case you would be ordered to pay £200 plus £60 costs, but of course if we prepare properly you won't lose the case and will be paying £0.

 

Sorry to keep bombarding you with questions, but there is a reason - before you got the claimform did they send you anything entitled Letter of Claim or Letter Before Claim or Letter Before Action?

[FTMDave]

I think it would be a good idea to file your defence at the last minute so the fleecers don't get warned about the massive own goal they've scored.  They'll then be stuck with a ludicrous Particulars of Claim which they would have to pay a hefty court fee to change   That's unless you consented to the change of course which methinks you wouldn't!

 

By the last minute I don't mean 4 October, as something might go wrong with MCOL, but I do mean 3 October.

 

If you look at  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/393251-received-a-court-claim-from-a-private-parking-speculative-invoice-how-to-deal-with-it-hereupdated-dec-2021/  and scroll down to  Q2) How should I defend?  there is our standard defence.  However I think you should alter it slightly to emphasise the idiotic PoCs.  How about -

 

 

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 dispute between the parties stems from two invoices issued by the Claimant, one dated 02.02.2019 and one 16.02.2019.  The Claimant has included the invoice dated 16.02.2019 five times in their Particulars of Claim, in a clear abuse of process.

6.  In a further abuse the Claimant has claimed 8% interest for this invoice five times, which is de facto 40% interest.

7.  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for over three and a half years and claim interest for such a long period of time.

 

8.  The Claimant's two invoices were for £95 each.  The Particulars of Claim ought to be for £190 plus costs.  The Claimant has invented an extra fictitious and vexatious sum of over £1000.

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.

Edited September 26, 2022 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[FTMDave]

No problem.

 

I've amended the proposed defence on the previous page accordingly.

 

The LoC is further proof that the 16.02.2019 invoice has been included five times in theirr PoCs.  The fleecers are on for a huge hiding here.

[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.

[FTMDave]

Can we see the LoC please?

[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?

[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.

[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.

 

 

 

 

[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?

[FTMDave]

OK, so the fleecers have a month to respond.

[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.

 

 

[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.

 

 

[FTMDave]

Any update here?

 

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

[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.

[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.  

[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.

[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

[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.