Spring Parking Ltd/DCB(Legal) 2019 & 2021 ANPR PCNs Claim: 1-3 Upper Green East, Mitcham, Surrey, CR4 2PE

[hitman126]

Hello,

I recently received the attached Claim Form filed by DCB Legal on behalf Spring Parking Limited, for two alleged parking infringements in 2019 and 2021.

No doubt, following on from the outcome of my last dealings with these same two leeches, this their latest move has come as little surprise to me, as they desperately seek to enact their own warped form of vengeance. 

I have today completed the AoS on MCOL and will be proceeding next with a CPR 3.14 and SAR submission to both parties respectively.

By my calculation, my defence submission on MCOL should be no later than Tue, 9th Jan 2024.

In the meantime, just looking forward to enjoying a break over the festive period and to recharge the batteries for this new battle with those unpleasant parasites.

Will also scour through my mail to see if I can retrieve any 'junk mail' I may have received from them and upload here for the usual expert review, observations and comments.

 

Claimform.pdf

[dx100uk]

please complete this

 

[hitman126]

Which Court have you received the claim from ?

1. MCOL Northampton N1 ?

If possible please scan redact and upload a full page copy of page 1 of the claim form. (not the response page or AOS)

Name of the Claimant :   Spring Parking Limited        

Claimants Solicitors: DCB Legal Ltd

Date of issue – 07 Dec 2023

Date for AOS - Tue, 26 Dec 2023

Date to submit Defence - (Tue, 09 Jan 2024

What is the claim for – 

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehical XXXX XXX at 1 3 Upper Green East, Mitcham, CR4 2PE.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 17/11/2019, 20/07/2021.

3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Exceeded Maximum Stay Period (ANPR).

4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £330 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.04 until judgment or sooner payment. 
3. Costs and court fees

What is the value of the claim? - £521.72

Amount Claimed  - £421.72

court fees  - £50.00

legal rep fees - £50.00

Total Amount - £521.72

Have you moved since the issuance of the PCN? - (Yes, since 01/11/2023)

Did you receive a letter of Claim With A reply Pack wanting I&E etc about 1mth before the claim form? - TBC, but definitely never communicated with Claimant or Solicitor

 

Claimform (1).pdf

[FTMDave]

It did cross my mind that they might have been so stupid as to have sued you again for the invoices they have already lost on.  But I checked your old thread and no, these are two new ones.

They are daft enough to persevere with DCBL though, whose inability to count up to five last time cost them £1300.

Well, it wasn't really DCBL that lost them the money, it was your superb fightback - but DCBL certainly didn't help.

[hitman126]

Well, they’re on course for another bloody nose, that’s for sure.

[zydeco]

When did the court fees go up to £50? or is this another dcbl typo that the sra have already told them off about

 

[lookinforinfo]

Hitman could you please answer the sticky about your PCNs which could give further ammunition against your little friends.

  Have you received a Parking Ticket - please fill this out?

By silverfox1961, February 24, 2016

[FTMDave]

Because they are claiming over £300 the court fees are £50  https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/court-fees

However, when the defence goes in the inflated claim needs to be challenged, they have made up presumably £140 Unicorn Food Tax, unreasonably delayed litigation since 2019 for one of the invoices so as to bump up interest, and are claiming £100 in interest some of it on the already fictitious Unicorn Food Tax.

It might be a good idea to quote their previous case no. against Hitman where they discontinued a claim after being found out for inventing £1000 of fictitious charges.

[FTMDave]

8 hours ago, hitman126 said:

I have today completed the AoS on MCOL and will be proceeding next with a CPR 3.14 and SAR submission to both parties respectively.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.  We remember how that went for them the last time

[hitman126]

unless my PC let me down by crashing during submission, I am quite certain I filled in the questionnaire last week.

Will verify though asap.

[dx100uk]

we only have the court sticky filled out here on post 3.

 

[hitman126]

My bad, I'm guessing what LFI was specifically enquiring about was whether I'd received any related PCNs.........and not just the answering of the sticky. 

Due to my recent house move, I've got a lot of letters and other paperwork needing unpacking, but good thing is that I store all PCNs and other such 'junk mail' in a dedicated folder so should be relatively easy to find and scour through them after work.

[dx100uk]

hope you've informed all your creditors/dca's in writing you have moved if you have any outstanding debts from the last say 7yrs?

dx

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Specifically

I am looking for the original PCN you received since that contains the important wording which determines whether the PCN complies with PoFA or not.

It can be a match winner if you weren't the driver but even if you were [and don't say here if you were] it makes it much harder for Spring to win as thousands of drivers are able to drive your car and Spring will need some proof that you were the driver. 

The Courts do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person.

[hitman126]

Happy New Year all. Wishing everyone the very best for 2024.

[hitman126]

I eventually went through my box of letters and managed to discover 2 Spring Parking PCNs (attached) which I believe relate to this case.

I'm however still hoping to find any other associated material such as NTKs, Debt Demand letters, etc, if any such letters were received.

In the meantime, kindly find attached the two significant PCNs in question.

I have already spotted some date discrepancy (PCN vs Court Form) for the PCN alleged to have been issued on 19/11/2019, but for now I'll let you all peruse and provide your feedback.

 

2021-07-26 Spring PCN.pdf 2019-12-20 Spring NTK for PCN 2019-11-21.pdf

[FTMDave]

Happy New Year to you too!

(Although not to Spring Parking should they be spying on the thread).

One of the PCNs is only a reminder, although it does show the POFA dates.  We need to see the original.

Given their antics of inventing charges, I'm thinking about the below for the defence.  Let's see what the other regulars think.

 

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 Claimant has artificially inflated the claim:
   (i)  the dispute between the parties regards two invoices totalling £190, yet the Claimant is claiming £330;
   (ii)  it is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for over four years in order to claim interest from 2019;
  (iii)  the Claimant is claiming over £90 interest, some of it on the fictitious amount;
  (iv)  in a previous case no.XXXXX between the parties the Claimant invented an extra fictitious and vexatious sum of over £1000 and had to discontinue.

6.  The Claimant has never issued any invoices to the Defendant dated 17.11.2019 or 20.07.2021.

7.  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 January 2 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[FTMDave]

48 minutes ago, hitman126 said:

I have already spotted some date discrepancy

Well spotted.  The daft gets have put the dates of the parking "offences", not the dates their invoices were issued.

DCBL just never seem to get it right.

I don't know how serious this is, but I've added it to the draft defence, at least provisionally.

 

[hitman126]

Hello All.

With my defence statement on MCOL due in just over 24 hours, are there any additional points anyone has in mind for my submission other than the one from the regular sticky and that put forward by?

[lookinforinfo]

Hitman I am so sorry that after writing to ask for the PCNs [thanks for that] I then failed to follow up in time.

.However most of what I noticed will work equally well in your WS should it get that far.

The first point is pretty trivial since despite what their Claim form states,    I am pretty sure you have never owned a vehical as written on the first line.

I was always led to understand that the claim was to pursue either the driver or the keeper and couldn't pursue both unless they already knew that the driver and the keeper were the same person. In your case they do not know and Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person.

Perhaps one of the Site crew could confirm if I am correct.

All their correspondence has been addressed to you as the keeper and as they have not specified who was driving had they known who was driving they would have named them and sent the Claim form to the driver.. 

They have already stated in their PCNs that after 28 days if no payment has been paid they are able to transfer the charge to the keeper. That is to the benefit of  the rogues. so as several years have passed the keeper is the one who is liable to pay the two PCNs.

Ideally you want your WS to get the Judge thinking along the lines that the keeper is responsible .And if Spring parking have not proved who was driving at that time then only the keeper is liable.

That gives Spring a problem because neither of their PCNs is compliant which means that the keeper is not liable to pay either PCN.

 

 

[hitman126]

Thanks

I'll draft up that defence asap and hopefully get it all submitted before close of play today, once all other comments/feedback here have been considered.

[lookinforinfo]

No keep it for the WS. 

[FTMDave]

The defence in post 17 is fine.

Make sure you put your previous claim form number in 5 (iv) from when you thrashed these idiots the last time.

[hitman126]

Morning all. 

Thanks for the additional info.

Submission on MCOL is just moments away.

[Nicky Boy]

On 08/01/2024 at 08:18, lookinforinfo said:

I was always led to understand that the claim was to pursue either the driver or the keeper and couldn't pursue both unless they already knew that the driver and the keeper were the same person

LFI, I asked this question on another thread, when I spotted that wording on the claimform. Andyorch says the claimant can put whatever they wish in their claim. (Common sense really.) It should be countered either in the defence or WS.