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

[hitman126]

Hi,

A few days ago, I received a Northampton County Court Business Centre Claim Form naming Spring Parking Ltd as the Claimant.

The Particulars of Claim demanded the settlement of an amount running into the hundreds of pounds, for some spurious PCNs 
that date back to 2019, all but one allegedly issued on the exact same date. The Claim Form (N1SDT) itself has an issue date of

02 Sept 2022. 

 

I believe there's been some recent changes to the law on this subject matter, but unfortunately this is something on which I'm

currently not up-to-speed and so to ensure I'm not shooting myself in the foot by providing a bad initial response to the Claim, I'd

be extremely grateful to receive the right advice from this forum's subject matter experts on how to proceed next. I'm happy to

provide any required material, including further details of the Claim itself if needed, but in the meantime I've provided below a

summary of the claim particulars.

 

Thanks

[[ Particulars of Claim - Summary ]]

 

1. The Defendant(D) is indebted to the Claimant(C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle XXXX XXX at [Address]. 
2. The PCN(s) were issued on xx/xx/2019, xx/xx/2019, xx/xx/2019, xx/xx/2019, xx/xx/2019, xx/xx/2019.
3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms of Cs signs (the contract), thus incurring the PCN(s).
4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The Contract entitles C to damaages.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £9xx 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 £0.11 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees.

[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?

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

i know you've given some of the above info, but for ease of dealing  with this and to make sure no MISTAKES are made in going fwd, please complete it.

 

then we will move you on.

 

just to be clear we need all dates times location etc.

just omit reg number or pcn numbers 

 

dx

 

[hitman126]

Thanks for the feedback @FTMDaveand @dx100uk. 

All points noted and will be jumping on the MCOL site to submit my acknowledgement of service later today.

Based on the Claim date, I believe the deadline for it is Wednesday 21/09, but I stand to be corrected on that.

 

Once that's out of the way, I'll gather any PCNs received, plus all other relevant documentation and share them

here asap.

[honeybee13]

You'll need to file a defence too, as detailed in the sticky. What's the date on claimform please?

 

It will also help us to advise if you could fill in the details on the sticky that dx linked to.

 

HB

[hitman126]

@honeybee13 the date on the claim form is Sept 02.

[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.

[dx100uk]

please fill this out.....

 

Received a Court Claim From A Private parking Speculative invoice?? - How To Deal With It HERE***Updated Dec 2021*** - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group

 

leave everything in the POC IN but just remove your reg.

 

[hitman126]

@dx100uk I hope I've copied, pasted and completed the below questionnaire as expected.

 

Kindly review and confirm.

 

In the meantime, I've now managed to find a number of correspondence relating to the alleged PCNs and will be editing and uploading them to this topic this weekend.

 

Which Court have you received the claim from ?

 

MCOL Northampton N1 ? YES

 

 

Name of the Claimant : SPRING PARKING LTD

 

Claimants Solicitors: (if one is stated) DCB LEGAL LTD, DIRECT HOUSE, GREENWOOD DRIVE, RUNCORN, WA7 1UG

 

Date of issue – 02 SEP 2022

 

Date for AOS -  SUBMITTED MON, 19 SEP 2022, RECEIVED TUE, 20 SEP 2022 - MCOL

 

Date to submit Defence - TUE, 04 Oct 2022

 

What is the claim for – 

 

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant(D) is indebted to the Claimant(C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle XXXX XXX at 1 3 Upper Green East, Mitcham, Surrey, Cr4 2pe.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 02/02/2019, 16/02/2019, 16/02/2019, 16/02/2019, 16/02/2019, 16/02/2019.

 

3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms of Cs signs (the contract), thus incurring the PCN(s).

 

4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The Contract entitles C to damaages.

 

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £990 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 £0.11 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees.

 

What is the value of the claim? £1,371.08

 

Amount Claimed £1,211.08

court fees £80.00

legal rep fees £80.00

Total Amount £1,371.08

 

@dx100uk, attached below and as requested, the full PoC minus my personal details. Copies of PCN and other correspondence to follow shortly. Thanks.

 

particulars-of-claim-minus_personal-details.pdf

[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.

 

 

[dx100uk]

yep you seriously need to get moving and make 1000% sure you are doing everything needed and quickly.

 

they will not let this go and will exploit any silly mistakes made during the whole process to the fullest extent.

 

if you make one , you will be in serious danger of losing this case BUT you are a master at this as you won the last claim.

 

 

[hitman126]

@dx100uk, sure will do with the pdfmerge.

As expected though, a lot of the letters are simply duplicates of the previous correspondence sent, but I will most definitely upload the entire lot.........once I get this CPR and SAR requests written up this afternoon. Mind you, on the subject of those two letters, considering that my defence ought to be received by Oct 3rd/4th, will it be wise to strip out any wording specifying a 7 and 10 day response timescale respectively? Kindly see below, snippets of each letter which state the timescales in question.

 

[[ SAR REQUEST ]]

"...........Under the new GDPR regime, you must satisfy this data disclosure request as soon as possible and in any event within one month. If there is specific information which you require in order to satisfy yourself as to my identity, please let me know by return. However, you are not entitled to impose any formality upon me or to require that I complete any particular form or template before you comply with your statutory duty.

 

I also require you to confirm to me that you are processing my personal data, how you acquired it, for what purpose you are processing it and also to identify all the parties with whom you have shared it. You are required to provide this information regardless of whether you believe that the substantive disclosure satisfies the conditions which permit you to impose a charge. I also require to know whether my data has been subject to any automatic processing which has resulted in decisions or suggested decisions being made in respect of me. Also, has my personal data been used in any way to categorise me or to place me on any lists. If so please explain.

 

Finally, I should remind you that you have a duty to make clear the meaning of any codes or shorthand which you use in relation to my personal data. If I do not hear from you within 10 days of the receipt of this letter, I will assume that this Statutory Request is satisfactory and that the one month timescale has started."

 

[[ CPR REQUEST ]]

"..........You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the document(s) I have requested are copied to and received by me within 7 days of receiving this letter.

If you require more time in which to comply with this request you must tell me in writing and confirm your agreement to an extension of the time allowed for me to file my defence as allowed under CPR 15.5, so I may notify the court."

[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.

[hitman126]

@FTMDavethanks for the action taken. Have always been a wee bit sceptical about uploading any personal data or references, etc, but only left it in there as aside my personal details, I was slightly unsure what else to exclude. Will take note for next time.

 

On the question of whether I overstayed 5 times on the same day, my only response is that it is as preposterous a claim by the Fleecers as you could ever imagine. I wouldn't even visit that car park twice in a single day..............let alone 5 times !! I have absolutely no doubt they'd struggle to even present any evidence for 2 visits on the same day.

[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?

[hitman126]

@FTMDavethat's correct. There's just a single Parking Charge Notice letter for two alleged dates...........both of which I've uploaded. At least that's all I've managed to find after thoroughly reviewing all such past correspondence.

Edited September 25, 2022 by hitman126

[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?

[lookinforinfo]

Hitman

if you were not the driver on either of the two occasions that you were issued with the two PCNs above, you are not liable for that ticket as both PCNs are not compliant. The reason is that in Schedule 4 S9  the vampires have to stick to the wording in the Regulations.  In S( 2] [f] they completely miss out a vital requirement.

 

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

 

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

 

They did not include the words within the brackets so they are non compliant.   Even if you were the driver as long as you haven't appealed to them back in 2019 they will have difficulty  in proving that you were the driver.   

 

It would help if you could get photos of

the car park that could help your case. 

Things like the sign at the entrance;

by the pay machine 

 

plus other signs dotted around the car park,

especially those that have different conditions.

 

Also note where they all are as these companies often post up their signage where they would  like them to be rather than where they actually are. This damages their credibility when they get it wrong. Of course their signs may have been right at the time since yours will be current. But the photos of the signs may well be important. And you may need all the help in light of the amount of claim against you.

[brassnecked]

Think they will have difficulty grounding five separate PCN's on same day for sure  the SAR should throw some light on it. The timings they trawl up might well be interesting as FTMDave says suing five times for same invoice won't go well for them.

[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

[hitman126]

Thanks for your various input, gents. I'll try and answer each of your queries, but apologies if I miss anything out.

 

@FTMDavethe only related letters aside the ones I've already uploaded are those from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd (DCBL) titled "Notice of Intended Legal Action", "Notice of Debt Recovery" and a few similar debt collection letters from Zenith Collections and Debt Recovery Plus Ltd. In total, I received 9 letters each for the two dates in question (02/02/2019 and 16/02/2019), having uploaded on this thread, the two PCNs and a couple of other letters. Hope this clarifies things.

 

@lookinforinfo thanks for already spotting some flaws in the wording of the claim. To shed a bit more light on the car park itself, the site has for years been a shared designated car park for users of a gym (until recently, run by Better UK) and Farmfoods store, both of which are located right on the car park premises. A few feet away, there are other shops and businesses like Morissons, Superdrug, Boots, Lloyds Bank, etc. I myself have been a member of the gym for a number of years. To the best of my knowledge, signage at the car park has changed over the years and I'm therefore not entirely sure the signage today will be an accurate reflection of the signage back in 2019. Still, I'll pop round there and get some pictures of the current signage, hopefully later today.

 

@brassneckedindeed, even their claim that I used that car park 5 times in a single day is as bonkers a suggestion as one can imagine. If the claim is that each ticket was for overstaying a 2 hour time limit, then that equates to me staying in that car park for a total of over 10 hours that day..................as if I didn't have far better things to do on my typically busy Saturdays!!

[brassnecked]

In which case @hitman126 FTMDave's suggestion for the Defence looks good.

[hitman126]

@FTMDaveapologies, but I have to correct an earlier information I provided. 

 

I have just managed to find a "Letter of Claim" from DCB Legal, dated 27 June 2022. Not surprisingly,

the dates given for the alleged PCNs do not match what's been stated on the Particulars of Claim.

In contrast with the Court Claim, only one single PCN is listed for 16/02/2019, with 5 different dates

cited for the other alleged PCNs.

 

I'll scan and upload the Letter of Claim here very shortly.

[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.