LoC now court claim to Spring Parking for failure to supply SAR ***Paid in full***

[FTMDave]

Well, the clock is ticking on the Letter of Claim.

 

Have a think about what you want to do.

 

A Cagger did recently successfully sue one of the larger private companies for £200 in a SAR distress case identical to yours.

 

However, if Spring Parking are, as it seems, a small company that work out of one of the directors' front rooms, you risk wasting the £35 claim fee and later bailiffs' fees if the bailiffs can only find a fictitious address.

[hitman126]

23 hours ago, FTMDave said:

Have a think about what you want to do

 

@FTMDaveso just to confirm again, I have already made that decision to definitely proceed with my counteraction and I intend to pursue this vigorously..............unless any of our resident subject matter experts here has some strong and valid objections against that course of action. However, following on from the previous conversations and advice received on this thread, the only reason why I haven't already set those wheels in motion are due to:

1. I await expiration of the14-day deadline for the 2nd SAR request letter (posted on November 15) which should be early next week.
2. If possible, I intend to obtain some first-hand verification of Spring Parking's presence at the Golders Green address. I'm however currently debating whether it's worth my while embarking on that journey though, as it's a very long drive up to that part of London, at extra time and expense to me. In any case, due to my work commitments during the weekdays, I can only ever make such a trip on a weekend. My personal view though is that as Spring Parking themselves (and their legal reps DCB Legal) use a particular address (PO Box 77282, NW4 9LR) on their court claim forms issued to me, surely the onus to provide a legitimate address should be on them and I should be perfectly within my legal rights to use that address for my counteraction, without the need to burden myself with any additional address verification exercise as proposed, no?

In the meantime, I plan to prepare a formal letter of complaint to the ICO this weekend, which should get that particular task out of the way and in readiness for the proposed further action.

[FTMDave]

I agree completely that you shouldn't have to burden yourself with any additional address verification.

 

What worries us a bit is this.  We don't of course know what would happen if you sue them, but it is at least a strong possibility that they ignore the claim form as they have ignored the Letter of Claim, so you win by default, but they then ignore the court order to pay within 30 days, meaning you would have to enforce with bailiffs ... but you'd have nowhere to send the bailiffs.

 

They seem to be a small company hiding behind a PO Box and thanks to the detective work by @Nicky Boywe know they are using an accommodation address as a registered office without really being there.  Both directors have the same surname and they could easily be working from their living rooms.

 

On the other hand £35 to start the claim is not a huge amount and even if they do hide it would be useful to show the judge later that they have deliberately hidden information from you in breach of their statutory duty making it impossible to completely defend the claim.

 

Tough one.  Your call.

Edited November 25, 2022 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[hitman126]

@FTMDavetrust me, for the grief and wasting of my precious time this entire court claim has caused me, I'd happily fork out even three times of that £35 to give Spring Parking a taste of their own medicine. In my opinion (and I stand to be corrected on this) refusing to respond to my SAR counterclaim makes it a double

jeopardy for them, as you also appear to rightly hint. 

 

I say this because, Spring Parking have firstly made a claim against me using that post office box address as their correspondence address, which is what's also officially recorded by the county court. Will they have any leg to stand on in court by refusing to acknowledge correspondence relating to my SAR counterclaim (which

by the way is linked to their initial PCN claim) but then on the flip side, choose to acknowledge and respond only to correspondence relating to their initial claim? The two claims are directly related and so in my view, if they are not willing to abide by the statutory duties relating to one, it compromises and/or impacts the outcome 

of the other.

 

Regarding the court bailiffs, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. In all honesty though and based on past experience with them (bailiffs) and the protracted nature of their enforcements, I'll have to make a judgment call on whether or not it would be worth my while pursuing that option, when that time arrives.

 

For me though, having a default judgement set against Spring Parking and getting their initial claim binned will be a great win in itself. That default court judgement comes with its own headache to deal with or even get reversed later on.............and that's satisfying enough for me.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Travelling all the way to NW11 is a bit drastic. can you not check them out by using  the phone number or email?

[email protected]

0208 209-9880

[honeybee13]

I agree, LFI, it could be a wild goose chase.

 

Address profile: 220 THE VALE, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM, NW11 8SR

WWW.COMPANIESHOUSEDATA.CO.UK

---

Overview of 33 companies located at: 220 THE VALE, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM, NW11 8SR

 

[FTMDave]

On 25/11/2022 at 17:24, hitman126 said:

@FTMDavetrust me, for the grief and wasting of my precious time this entire court claim has caused me, I'd happily fork out even three times of that £35 to give Spring Parking a taste of their own medicine.

Well their 14 days are up today.

 

You can start the claim through the MCOL site.  After all, you're already registered.

 

You can use @MoaningCrusader's PoCs almost verbatim, your two cases are a photocopy of each other's.

 

If you want us to double check first, post the PoCs up.

[hitman126]

@FTMDave yep, I'm all set to get started on submitting that Court Claim on MCOL today. Thanks

for offering to double-check it, as it's really important for me that no loose ends are left dangling.

 

I already spent a bit of time on the ICO website yesterday looking into the process around a formal

complaint. It appears I only need complete and submit an online form, attaching all supporting docs

and/or material evidence. Will be doing that as well today, once I've gathered all related letters and

comms sent to Spring Parking. 

[hitman126]

16 hours ago, FTMDave said:

If you want us to double check first, post the PoCs up.

 

All, 

 

Kindly cast your eyes over the below PoC draft which I intend to submit on MCOL very shortly 

and provide any feedback. Thanks

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ DRAFT POC ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

The Claimant submitted a Subject Access Request pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018

to Spring Parking Ltd (the Defendant) and their legal team, DCB Legal Ltd, on 26/09/2022.

The Defendant breached the statutory deadline of 30 days and has failed to make the 
disclosure. This failure is continuing 2 months later. 

 

The Defendant's breach of their statutory duty and the Claimant's inability to access their

personal data has caused them serious issues and distress.

 

The distress has been further exacerbated as the Defendant is pursuing the Claimant for 
payment of a disputed private parking charge. The Claimant requires all data held by the 
Defendant, to prepare for the pending court hearing relating to this dispute. 

 

The Claimant now seeks damages of £200 from the Defendant, for the distress caused as a 
result of this dereliction of statutory duty.

Edited November 30, 2022 by FTMDave
Unnecessary info removed

[FTMDave]

From your draft I've removed "despite further correspondence with the Defendant’s data protection team and reasonable response time given" as this happened in MoaningCrusader's case but not in yours.  Sorry, i should have spotted that before.

 

Looks good to go.

 

I think you should get papers served to the registered address rather than the P.O. Box ... but hang on a little while to see if the other regulars comment.

 

    

[hitman126]

@FTMDaveThanks for the feedback.

 

In the meantime, I went on the MCOL site just over an hour ago to begin a draft of the Claim and carry out an initial due diligence, and it looks like we're going to have to come up with something real genius to outsmart the rogues. So as a result of that initial 'dry-run', this is what transpired earlier this morning.

 

1. That NW4 9LR post code with P.O. Box 77282 address is not recognised on MCOL and throws an immediate error (screenshot attached) when entered on the Claim form. Mind you, let's be reminded that this is also the very address with which they made their original claim against me.

 

2. The NW11 8SR, 220 The Vale..... address (which is also their registered address on the Companies House website) isn't recognised as being registered to Spring Parking on neither the MCOL website (screenshot again attached).........nor crucially, the Royal Mail website via their Postcode Finder system .

 

Now, unless there can be a valid, counter argument that DCB Legal are deemed as the primary contact relating to Spring Parking's original court claim against me, my main challenge relating to the above NW4 9LR address is that, surely that claim becomes invalid if:

 

a) Spring Parking have failed to provide a valid contact address through which I, as the defendant, could challenge or dispute the claim. I know for example that even for cases of far less magnitude such as tenancy agreements and other related property rental issues, failure by a Landlord to provide valid contact address/details can invalidate an eviction notice, rent increase notification, etc. Let's bear in mind that the court procedures demand that I serve "all parties", including the Claimant, with copies of any submissions relating to the claim. As such, if the Claimant has failed in their duties to provide their valid contact details, this failure compromises their case against me. I stand to be corrected on this, but in my view, a Defendant's ability to provide a proper defence is compromised if a Claimant chooses to withold key information such as their valid contact details.

 

b) This was mainly the reason why I pushed back on having to go through the hassle of physically visiting their registered company address in North London (> 3 hours round trip) to ascertain whether they were legitimately located at those premises. Similar to the Landlord, I strongly believe the onus is on the Claimant to provide valid contact details through which they can be contacted by either the Court, or the Defendant..............and not the other way round.  

 

c) As this NW4 9LR post office box address was what Spring Parking themselves submitted to the court in their claim against me, am I not also legally obliged to submit all related correspondence (including counterclaims) to Spring Parking to that address only..............or does the court legislation allow flexibility to use the business registered address as well?

 

I tried calling MCOL on 0300 123 1057 for some answers to the above, but was kept on hold for so long I eventually had to end the call as work demands beckoned. I will though make further attempts to contact them this afternoon, but would also be grateful for any further advice or feedback on here, on how to proceed with my claim.

 

MCOL_postcode_checker.pdf MCOL_postcode_verification_failure.pdf

[hitman126]

I strongly believe that Spring Parking deliberately use those two fictitious addresses to ward off disputes or claims against them, etc. 

Their mantra in my view is that, if you can't reach them............you can't touch them either.

[Nicky Boy]

How about sending to a directors address?

 

SPRING PARKING LTD people - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

FIND-AND-UPDATE.COMPANY-INFORMATION.SERVICE.GOV.UK

---

SPRING PARKING LTD - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return...

 

If you search on 192.com for the surname "Vorhand" and address "45 Cranbourne Gardens, London", it looks like Aaron Hillel Vorhand might still be living there?

The other address "Japonica House, Spring Villa Road, Edgware", also shows him present, apparently with a load of other "Vorhands"!

 

This just keeps getting messier...

[Nicky Boy]

What a labyrinth!

 

Aaron Hillel VORHAND personal appointments - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

FIND-AND-UPDATE.COMPANY-INFORMATION.SERVICE.GOV.UK

---

Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges...

 

He also shows resident at this address "32 Russell Gardens, London, United Kingdom, NW11 9NL" on 192.com.

 

The company "Hillmar Estates" is also registered at 220 The Vale, as is "YAFI WIGS (UK) LTD"

 

I think we've gone down a rabbit hole and got lost...

[FTMDave]

Don't send it to a director's address.  Sorry, I'm busy at work now, I'll reply when I can, there is a lot to look at when time allows.

[hitman126]

@Nicky BoyI personally would never advocate raising a legal case against anyone by using an unofficial,

untrusted and unverified source such as 192.com............or some random Google search for that matter.

 

From my very own personal experience, I do know it is a legal requirement for every business to confirm

their correct, registered address with Companies House each year and so Companies House is certainly

one source I will consider to be legitimate and reliable. Failure to declare and/or confirm a correct business

address, plus directorship and other business details to Companies House is very much an offence. 

Another legitimate address source, albeit not 100% reliable, will be the registered address stated on the

company's website or other official form of correspondence.

 

Anything else and you could be digging a big hole for yourself and/or embarking on a time-wasting exercise.    

[hitman126]

By the way, I just came off the phone following a call to the MCOL Helpline nearly an hour ago and here's the feedback or update from them.

 

Not surprisingly, as is typical of HMRC court clerks, they always start off with a disclaimer that they cannot provide any advice of a legal nature and so I was unable to gain any clarity on a number of the key points I raised here earlier, notably my legal right and obligation to direct all correspondence to Spring Parking relating to the original claim (including the pending counterclaim) to the address given on their original claim form. 

 

Regarding the MCOL postcode validation issue encountered though, I was advised to send out an email to their technical team, highlighting all of the issues and also emphasizing the fact that these were all despite me using multiple browsers - Microsoft Edge, Firefox and IE. Apparently, due to some known technical issues, these are the three browsers they recommend to users on MCOL, with Safari and Chrome to be avoided at all cost if possible. 

 

The instruction/request given me to pass on to the MCOL technical team [email protected] is that they map the Spring Parking Ltd NW4 postcode onto the MCOL system which is said to be a bit dated and may require the occasional update, perhaps similar to the Sat Nav systems of a few years back.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Spring Parking Ltd · 220 The Vale, Golders Green, London, NW11 ...

https://opengovuk.com › company

 

 

 

Company Number, 07513006. Company Name, SPRING PARKING LTD. Address, 220 The Vale Golders Green London NW11 8SR. Company Category, Private Limited Company.

[hitman126]

Yep, and even though the Royal Mail postcode checker and the MCOL portal both fail to confirm the validity of

220 The Vale as a Spring Parking Ltd address, it will definitely be the only official address I'd be inclined to go

with at the moment, as it's given as the registered address at Companies House and also on the Spring Parking

website.

[FTMDave]

Here I am at long last.

 

If you haven't already filed the claim, do so tomorrow at their registered address of 220 The Vale.  If they don't receive it, good for you, you'll win by default, and it'll be their own fault for lying about where they really work from.

 

Best not to send to a director, a director is a completely different legal identity from the company, we had someone recently who did just that and got into hot water.

[hitman126]

Nope, not filed yet.

Will do so later today and all directed to their registered business address...............hopefully once I can grab some break from my work schedule.

[hitman126]

All, 

 

So finally got round to starting that counterclaim on MCOL. Quick question, under the particulars of claim there's a question asking if I wish to send detailed particulars direct to the defendant (please see attached). Do I pick up that task by ticking the box...............or best leave MCOL to deal with that?

 

 

counterclaim_particulars.pdf

[AndyOrch]

If your particular's fit within allowed MCOL box there is no need to send separate particulars which complicates the claim so no disregard.

That is only for extensive complicated claims.

[hitman126]

@Andyorchexcellent !!

Thanks for that quick feedback. Returning to the claim now to complete my submission.

[FTMDave]

I've started a new thread for your claim against Spring Parking for SAR distress.  There are two separate legal actions now.