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

[FTMDave]

5 hours ago, hitman126 said:

@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.

I'm not suggesting you really issue another claim.  I know you don't want to enforce.  A new claim would be just throwing money down the drain.

 

I'm just trying to think of what threat might make Spring Parking finally cooperate. 

 

So I thought of threatening them with a further £400 claim, which would take the amount they owe to £600 which is the point where High Court bailiffs can be involved, and make it clear you know one of the addresses they show for their company on Companies House is an address where one of the directors lives.

 

Personally at that point I'd give in and print you out your copies of your six invoices.  But of course there are no guarantees.

[FTMDave]

So what do you reckon re the above?

 

You have to find a way to get your hands on the PCNs, otherwise you'll go into court blindfolded.

[hitman126]

First and foremost, let me state emphatically that I have absolutely no problem raising another County Court claim to prompt Spring Parking to act and also serve as a proper statement of intent, if that is the general consensus on here. There are bigger priorities in one's life to focus on and I simply loathe the fact I have to grant those leaches significant chunks of my time when I can put that time to better use and that's why I have no problem wanting to go to war with them............promptly, decisively and effectively. Even if

that requires further court claims.

 

However, what I'm scratching my head over is the fact that how and why would a court ultimately rule against a defendant if a claimant refuses to comply with what is a statutory requirement? Even cases

involving the Police (or any prosecution for that matter) require them to provide a defendant and/or their legal representatives with every piece of evidence they hold on them, so I'm not quite sure why this should be any different here. Countless court cases have collapsed due to similar reasons and even these days, the Police and Local Authority provide you with actual online video evidence to support most cases against a motorist. Why then should Spring Parking be given a 'pass' in this scenario?

 

Surely, if I've demanded on numerous occasions that Spring Parking provide me with the "evidence" they hold against me and they're stubbornly refusing to comply, doesn't that jeopardise their case ultimately? Can that not be used as part of a defence to prompt a judge to dismiss the case entirely?

 

Maybe someone can correct me on this that the rules apply differently with motoring cases, but I'm frankly a bit baffled as to why we're literally having to repeatedly coax, coerce and threaten Spring Parking to do what is a statutory obligation required of them to validate their very own court claim. The prosecution cannot withold evidence from a defence lawyer or defendant in any court case.........so why should this be any different?

 

Perhaps someone can shoot me down on this and shed more light.

 

[FTMDave]

Firstly, let me be crystal clear again that I'm not suggesting you start another court claim

 

What I'm suggesting is to simply threaten to do so.  Just to send a letter.  In the hope that a grand, apocalyptic threat of high court bailiffs backing on their home door might push these charlatans into action.

 

Your logic is 99% spot on, although obviously civil cases are a little different from criminal.  The process for civil cases is that 14 days before the hearing, the parties will have to exchange Witness Statements with the evidence inside that they will use in court.

 

But the problem is this.  You will get theirs at the same time that you will have to send yours.  So how will you know whether the PCNs respect the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act or whether the photos are taken in the right place or if the overstay is within the grace period, etc., etc?  It will be very difficult to ridicule their case in your WS if you don't see the PCNs before.

 

This is why we say not to use e-mail, because if you do the WS will arrive one minute before the deadline full of lies you can't counter.  At least by snail mail it might turn up a couple of days before the deadline.

 

To me you lose nothing by sending a single threatening letter, and it might do the trick.

[hitman126]

@FTMDavethat's excellent feedback and good to know some of the key points you've raised, particularly on

the issue regarding the channels of communication that could be taken advantage of by the claimant and equally 

importantly, the timing of it. That particular likelihood had admittedly gone slightly off my radar.

 

It's great we're sharing all these points and frankly, it helps provide a better and more rounded understanding of

what's at stake, so thank you very much for that.

 

Your suggestion of a 'threatening letter' is well-acknowledged and sounds awesome and I'm happy to go along with

it. However,  I'm willing to go even further by suggesting we up the stakes by submitting a new SAR non-compliance

court claim..........if there's no objection here. Otherwise, I'm happy to write-up and send out that letter this weekend.

[FTMDave]

Understood.

 

My turn to be under the cosh for work!

 

Will be on the forum late this evening.

[FTMDave]

Well, I was the one treading carefully - you obviously want to go after them with both barrels!  However, before a court claim it's obligatory to send a LoC.  Here are two different, suggested LoCs, with explanation following -

 

 

VERSION A

 

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 £200 for distress caused for the period from 16th November 2022 until 23rd 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. 

 

Although you have no defence to the distress caused by your failure from 16th November 2022 until 23rd January 2023, I undertake to not proceed with the claim if you satisfy my Subject Access Request by 30th 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,

 

 

VERSION B

 

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 23rd 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.  Bailiffs will be supplied with every address you associate the company with on Companies House

   - 220 The Vale, NW11 8SR

   - 194-200 Brent Street, NW4 1BJ

   - Spring Villa Road, HA8 7XT

   - oh yes!!! - 45 Cranbourne Gardens, NW11 0HU.

 

Although you have no defence to the distress caused by your failure from 16th November 2022 until 23rd January 2023, I undertake to not proceed with the claim if you satisfy my Subject Access Request by 30th 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,

[FTMDave]

It depends on what you hope to gain from this.

 

If you go for a smaller sum of £200 it will cost you less, and they are more likely to give in and/or a judge is more likely to allow the claim.

 

If you go for a higher sum that all that is reversed - but you can threaten them with High Court bailiffs bangng on the door of 45 Cranbourne Gardens where, presumably, one of them lives.

 

Have a ponder over the weekend, which also gives a chance to the other regulars to contribute.

 

 

[hitman126]

@FTMDavethanks for those two letter drafts. I think I'll personally go for 'VERSION A' as it looks pretty straightforward 

and very appropriate for my case.

 

With 'VERSION B', I've got some slight unease about that demand for a £400 compensation for distress. With the court 

having already issued judgement and awarded me £200 from my initial non-compliance claim, this £400 demand sounds

to me like I'm demanding another payment outside of the court process, which I may be entirely wrong, but feels a bit like

I'm extorting or demanding money from them, off my own back. Please feel free to shoot me down or correct me on this.

Edited January 23, 2023 by hitman126

[FTMDave]

Understood.

 

You're well in your rights to sue them for another £200 for causing you distress by again failing in their statutory duty.  I picked up on all this due to this thread  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428408-virgin-mystery-extra-line-2-judgments-for-data-protection-breaches-so-far/#comment-5077084  where someone kept suing Virgin for the same thing - and winning.

 

So send Version A off tomorrow, say, with updated dates in the final part -

 

You now have 14 days to pay the me the sum of £200 for distress caused for the period from 16th November 2022 until 24th 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. 

 

Although you have no defence to the distress caused by your failure from 16th November 2022 until 24th January 2023, I undertake to not proceed with the claim if you satisfy my Subject Access Request by 31st 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,

[FTMDave]

I would be tempted to send two copies by 1st class post tomorrow, one to the address they gave to the court, and one to Cranbourne Gardens where we suspect one of the directors lives.  Hopefully that will worry them.  You have every right to write there, the address is shown as a company address on Companies House.

 

Get two free Certificates of Posting from the post office. 

 

Given their history of lying and using false addresses it is a bad idea to use signed for - they may never sign for it!  The law is that a letter sent tomorrow will be considered delivered on Thursday if you have simple proof of postage.

[hitman126]

21 hours ago, FTMDave said:

You now have 14 days to pay the me the sum of £200 for distress caused for the period from 16th November 2022 until 24th January 2023.  In case of no payment I shall begin a County Court claim against you

 

So just for my clarity, this demand for a £200 distress settlement in the proposed letter is completely separate

to the successful court claim and award of a similar amount?

 

[FTMDave]

Yes.

 

That's why we've been very specific about the dates.

[hitman126]

And will the law not deem that as some form of extortion, as I'm making this monetary demand off

my own back, with no recourse or adherence to the due judicial process?

[FTMDave]

I don't understand where you get extortion from.  It's a cut & dried case.

 

Spring Parking have caused you distress by not respecting their statutory duty.  You are sending them a Letter of Claim in accordance with the civil county court pre-action protocol.  If they don't pay by the generous deadline of 14 days you have given them, you will commence court proceedings in accordance with the civil law in England & Wales.  All completely legal and above board.

 

Indeed even though the case is cut & dried and the distress has been caused, you're offering to let them off if they finally send you the photocopies by next Tuesday!

[Nicky Boy]

You are adhering to the "judicial process".

 

You issue a claim, following all the relevant rules (your letter before action), they don't defend, you win... judicial process....

Edited January 24, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[hitman126]

On 20/01/2023 at 23:38, FTMDave said:

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 £200 for distress caused for the period from 16th November 2022 until 23rd January 2023.  In case of no payment I shall begin a County Court claim against you.

 

Apologies, but perhaps I'm simply not elaborating on my concern properly and in great detail and so there might be a bit of misunderstanding. To present a more detailed explanation, above are the two key paragraphs from the proposed

letter.

 

The first paragraph states:

 

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

 

The above paragraph, I fully acknowledge as referring to the 'cut-and-dried' claim for distress for which the court awarded judgement earlier this month. The wording of the letter also goes on to clarify that the aforementioned sum of £200 is for distress caused until 15th November 2022. No issues or queries here. All done and dusted.

 

 

Now, onto the second paragraph. This states that:

 

You now have 14 days to pay the me the sum of £200 for distress caused for the period from 16th November 2022 until 23rd January 2023.  In case of no payment I shall begin a County Court claim against you.

 

Unless I'm misinterpreting the above wording horribly, for this new distress claim, this second paragraph states that it covers an entirely new period from the first claim period, i.e. 16th November until 23rd January. The wording of the letter

therefore appears to demand an entirely new £200 distress payment covering the period 16th Nov to 23rd January, which is frankly where my concern lies. This second distress payment claim is being initiated via a personal letter to the defendant (and hence my point regarding non-adherence to judicial process), but with a threat to begin a County Court claim against them, "in case of no payment" or non-compliance with this second distress payment demand. 

 

So, in a nutshell and to the best of my understanding,

 

With the first claim for distress caused until 15th November 2022, judgment was awarded via the court.

 

However, for this second distress claim from 16th November until 23rd January, the wording of the letter appears to suggest that if the defendant fails to pay me this second distress claim of £200, I'll then begin a County Court claim against them for the said amount.

 

Perhaps I've got this this interpretation of the letter wording entirely wrong and if so, I'm happy and will appreciate being pointed in the right direction. 

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

2 hours ago, hitman126 said:

This second distress payment claim is being initiated via a personal letter to the defendant

No, it isn't.

 

It's a Letter of Claim sent to Spring Parking.

 

Similar to the LoC for your first distress case.

 

You're perfectly entitled to sue again for a second period of distress if they continue not to respect your SAR request, as done in the Virgin case I linked to.

 

On two Companies House pages -

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/YawalBnISP90lpzQDIY4JxYyHyM/appointments

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/x1D0c35WIlNw-OJkv397S6Xw6n4/appointments

 

- the address of 45 Cranbourne Gardens, London, United Kingdom, NW11 0HU is given for Spring Parking.  So you're perfectly entitled to write to that address.  I suggested writing there as it seems one of the directors lives there and it might make him wet himself and finally cooperate.

[hitman126]

Breaking News...........!!!

 

Well everyone, we did it again.

Unless this is all a big con, looks like we managed to pummel the leeches into eventual submission. What an

awesome tag team performance from everyone here !!

 

So, I received today's post within the last few minutes and curiously, one of the letters delivered was from 

DCB Legal and states inter alia:

 

 

Dear xxxxxx,

 

Re:        Our Client:                       Spring Parking Ltd

              Claim Number:               xxxxxxxx

 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

 

We write further to your mediation appointment.

 

DCB Legal acknowledge your statement that you are agreeable to withdrawing your Claim against Spring Parking

Ltd on the basis that the above Claim - xxxxxxx - against you is also discontinued.

 

Our Client has confirmed that they are agreeable to withdrawing their Claim on the basis that you also withdraw

your Claim against our Client.

 

In order to do this, we require that you email the Court and copy myself into this email and confirm that you are

discontinuing your Claim against Spring Parking Ltd.

 

Once this email has been received, we will proceed to file an N279 Notice of Discontinuance confirming that our

Client is withdrawing their Claim (xxxxxxx).

 

Once this has been completed, we will proceed to close our file and there will not be any further action from our

office in relation to this matter.

 

Yours faithfully

 

DCB Legal Ltd.

[FTMDave]

This is good news but it isn't the complete victory it might seem.

 

I have to rush to work now but will be on the forum this evening.

[AndyOrch]

Why not they discontinue first ?

[Nicky Boy]

Hang on...

 

They are obviously referring to your first claim against them.

 

You already have obtained judgment.

They already have a CCJ against their name.

 

Question for the experts... can the original judgment be reversed?

Edited January 25, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[hitman126]

From personal experience a few years ago, I do know that judgement can be reversed.

5 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

Why not they discontinue first ?

 

My thoughts exactly.

[FTMDave]

This is a positive development but please don't do anything precipitous today.

 

There is a hornet's nest of complications to face.

 

More later - work calls.

[AndyOrch]

If you have judgment with your claim, you cannot discontinue it......they can make application to set a side and you agree (Consent Order) to their application.

 

 

 

.