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

[hitman126]

 

Well, below are edited copies of the attachment response to my SAR request received earlier today from Spring Parking.

 

SAR Return.pdf

[FTMDave]

13 hours ago, hitman126 said:

We completely turn our backs on DCB Legal's compromise deal and await a new court date?

I can't see what you have to negotiate with them now.

 

This also won't end quickly.  They are suing for six invoices but there are eight in total.

The fleecers have respected the timescales of the Protection of Freedoms Act to go after the keeper.

The photos are all of your car on the open road, sometimes with other vehicles present, on one occasion at a junction with another road, so it begs the question of where their cameras are and how they can prove you entered the car park in question.   

 

08.02.2019

20.02.2019  This is only one minute over the 15-minute consideration + grace period.

29.04.2019  This appears to be different.  Not an overstay, but parking in a no-parking area.  With no photo evidence.  And mention you were only there for three minutes.

01.05.2019   You are within the consideration + grace period.

21.11.2019 

05.08.2020  This is only one minute over the 15-minute consideration + grace period.

26.08.2020  This is only two minutes over the 15-minute consideration + grace period.

26.07.2021

Edited February 3, 2023 by FTMDave
Typos

[Nicky Boy]

Well, I also think it's significant that they have absolutely no evidence (pics) that hitman's car was ever in the car park at all.

 

And, as I already pointed out, there is no entrance signage whatsoever. (Lack of COP compliance).

 

I can't remember, did the fleecers apply to DVLA for every PCN?

 

As Hitman's already shown his tenacity, ability and determination to go after them, they should realise that he will pusrue them to the end of the earth...

So, how about sending a letter, pointing out that if they pursue their claim and lose (which they will), he will pursue a GDPR claim. They could obviously avoid this scenario by withdrawing their claim.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[hitman126]

9 minutes ago, Nicky Boy said:

they have absolutely no evidence (pics) that hitman's car was ever in the car park at all

 

@Nicky Boythat's absolutely one of the ridiculous things they tend to depict on all of their PCNs. It only ever shows

the vehicle on a public road.........not parked in the car park they claim to manage. 

[Nicky Boy]

Been thinking about this one and I believe there may still be room for negotiation.

 

Hitman wishes to reel it in a little and adopt more of a softly, softly approach to the situation.

 

However, he certainly doesn't need the hassle of the current claim... Or, the possibility of any future claims preying on his mind!

 

It should really only involve phrasing a letter to adopt a "firm, factual" approach rather than "antagonistic", which Hitman wants to avoid...

 

Perhaps a letter highlighting to the fleecers that they now have experience of Hitman's ability to use the MCOL claims process.

Suggest that, should they continue with their current claim and lose (very likely), he has every intention of issuing a GDPR claim against them, which would result in a financial loss to them far in excess than that already incurred.

 

With the evidence they have already reluctantly supplied under the SAR, plus evidence he already has, there would be a reasonable GDPR case to pursue right now, but a lost claim by themselves would put the result of any claim beyond doubt... Etc.

 

Any thoughts?

 

[hitman126]

37 minutes ago, Nicky Boy said:

Hitman wishes to reel it in a little and adopt more of a softly, softly approach to the situation.

 

And that's only because they were first to offer an olive branch and went on to propose dropping their claim entirely, if I did so with mine.

Under those circumstances, I just thought it would be completely counter-productive rubbing them the wrong way or even appearing to

be contemptuous, hence my suggestion we adopt a slightly more cordial approach.

 

As far as negotiation is concerned, well the ball is currently well and truly in their court. I replied to DCB Legal's offer letter last Friday with

some additional conditions, but they're yet to respond.

 

[hitman126]

Morning All.

 

Kindly find below a quick update on this case and as I want to paint a full picture on events to provide better clarity, apologies in advance if I repeat anything that's already common knowledge to all and sundry.

 

Following on from our mediation appointment in December and towards the end of last month, DCB Legal sent me a letter on behalf of their client (Spring Parking), agreeing to withdraw their original claim against me, on condition that I also withdrew my SAR claim against them. This letter however arrived too late, as the 

court had by then awarded judgement and costs in my favour for a total sum of £235.

 

I however responded to DCB Legal's offer letter by accepting their proposal, but with the caveat that they confirm in writing the PCN's that were related to their withdrawal offer. By this stage, I'd chosen not to cash Spring Parking's settlement cheque as I awaited DCB's reply. 

 

That response from DCB Legal finally came through on Wednesday 22nd Feb and as a result of that, I went ahead to cash the cheque from Spring, wait for it to clear and then provide MCOL with a settlement update. All of these actions have now been completed. 

 

The main body of the DCB Legal email reply (including an attached N279 - Notice of Dicontinuance), was as below:

 

************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

Dear xxxxxxxx,

 

We act for the Claimant.

 

Without Prejudice Save as to Costs

 

We acknowledge your offer to settle the Judgment, however, updating the Court that the matter has been settled will not remove the CCJ from our Client's credit file.

 

We do note, that you have received payment in full from our Client, and therefore request that you do update the Court that our Client has made payment in full within

the calendar month of Judgment being entered.

 

Our Client has instructed us to discontinue their Claim against you, and notice of the same is attached by way of service.

 

We confirm the Court has been updated of the discontinuance and we will therefore proceed to close our file.

 

Kind Regards,

 

xxxxx

 

************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

Having probably made a sound assessment of their position, including incorrect claim form details, SAR compliance breaches and subsequent penalties, etc, it appears both DCB and Spring came to the conclusion it would be best to simply cut their losses and bring the entire messy saga to an end. 

 

As things therefore stand at this minute, I can report that we have vigorously succeeded in fighting back against this particular court claim and for that, I can only offer my biggest gratitude to everyone here for all your wonderful advice and contribution.

 

There's every chance that this may not be the last we hear from those vampires as they seek to enact 'revenge' at a later date, but that will be another battle for another day...............which we'll be well prepared for and leave no stone unturned in our fight back!!

 

 

 

 

 

[brassnecked]

A  brilliant tolchoking for the Can't pay eejits and a useless parking Fleecer. 

[Nicky Boy]

"eejits"?

Are you of Irish heritage brassnecked?

 

Reminds me of my Father in Law...

[FTMDave]

I've been on this forum for seven years and this is one of the best, if not the best, thrashings of the parking cowboys.

 

They must have been besides themselves with glee at the thought of a grand a a half.  Never in their worst nightmares would they have thought they would have had to give in long before the hearing, after losing a separate court claim themselves costing them £235, and end up pleading with you to tell the court they'd been good boys and had paid on time.

 

Ho!  Ho!  Ho!

 

It couldn't have gone better.

 

The only bad side is that you've seen off two of their invoices, there are six left, but as you say that will be another battle for another day.  Now it's time to savour the moment!  Well done!  

 

 

[honeybee13]

Well done Hitman.

 

HB

[brassnecked]

1 hour ago, FTMDave said:

The only bad side is that you've seen off two of their invoices, there are six left, but as you say that will be another battle for another day.  Now it's time to savour the moment!  Well done!  

 The fact they lost by having to withdraw, and given the other invoices are faulty in all probability, they would be best advised to not try again against hitman126.