Brighton OPS Defence - would anyone check it for me pls?

Umkomaas

I think this is the 3rd thread about the same issue.

OP - PM a Board Guide to get all your threads merged please.

BellaEm

deleted thread

Umkomaas

Please refer to post #3 above. Thank you.

BellaEm

Hi, I've only posted once about this before a month ago. I don't know how to PM a Board Guide to get all my threads merged, sorry

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT][/FONT]

KeithP

On one of your other threads you have shown us a draft Defence.

Earlier in this thread there is talk of a Directions Questionnaire.

But nowhere (that I can see - might be on yet another thread I suppose) is there any mention of you having received a County Court Claim Form.

OP, have you received a County Court Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton?

If so, what is the Issue Date on that Claim Form?

You must get your threads merged. No-one here is going to dart about looking at several threads to try and understand what is going on.

Fruitcake

BellaEm wrote: »

Hi, I've only posted once about this before a month ago. I don't know how to PM a Board Guide to get all my threads merged, sorry

Near the bottom right of the main parking forum page you will find a list of board guides. If you click on their user names you will find the option to send them a pm.


Board Guides

Board Guides : 3

Crabman, savvy, soolin

BellaEm

Hi

I have a court date in March for a very old parking charge (2018) that was rejected but sent to the worng address. It escalated into a massive claim via DCBL, from £40 to over £200 with added 'costs' and 'interest'. I have followed the new MSE Defence template so helpfully uploaded by CouponMad, and added on my case details and evidence. Would anyone more savvy than me be willing to read it over for me before I send? I am terrified 

Thanks

nosferatu1001

1) give us the date of issue of the claim form
2) give us when you filed the ack of service
3) just post it here. only what you have changed. of course you do not add any evidence in at this stage, as the newbies thread very clearly tells you!
And dont be terrified! DCBL are incompetents and they hire the absolute greenest (so cheapest) advocates, giving them no time to prepare
WHich parking company?

BellaEm

1) I don't know as they sent everything to the wrong address

2) January 2020

3) OPS using DCBL

3) Here are the parts I have added to #2 and #3 of the new MSE template

1.       The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to relief in the fluctuating sums claimed. 

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

 

2.       The particulars of this Claim are so scant, and the amounts claimed fluctuate so variously, that the Defendant has been unclear exactly what they relate to. The Defendant was forced to make several Direct Subject Access Requests (DSAR) to the Claimant and their various Representatives to find out what the fluctuating Claims may be for.

 

3.         After DSAR (2), the Claim originates in an alleged ‘breach of contract’ for a ‘Parking Charge Notice’ (PCN) issued by the Claimant, One Parking Solution, on the 19th of October 2018 (PCN OPSXXXXXXXX, £80.00 or £40.00 if paid within 14 days, for vehicle XXXXXXX) (please see: Evidence A). The Claimant has, between 2018 and 2021, submitted various Claims to the defendant for amounts fluctuating between £40.00, £80.00, £140.00, £160.00, and £227.39.

 

3.1       The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. 

 

3.2       It is a fact that the Defendant was eligible for, and had applied for, an authorised parking permit for the location and date in question. On arrival at the location on the date in question, the Defendant was informed that their permit was not ready for collection. This was entirely beyond the Defendant’s control. There was no option to ‘pay and display’, or by other method pay to park, and the signage at the location does not give instruction. As there are no alternative parking facilities or methods of payment, the Defendant was forced to park and investigate seek out a temporary permit or permission. The Defendant was reassured that their vehicle would not be ticketed while this was located. The Defendant was extremely surprised to be issued with a PCN by One Parking Solution, and assumed it was merely a mistake. There was not inadequate signage at the location indicating what to do in the event of a permit not being available, or how to pay to park temporarily (please see Evidence B). Furthermore, there was no signage relating to the additional sums of money being Claimed here.

 

3.3       The Defendant immediately challenged the PCN, in writing, on the grounds above (3.2) (please see: Evidence C)

 

3.4.      No rejection of that challenge to the PCN was issued to the Defendant by the Claimant. The Defendant was thereby denied the opportunity to settle or pursue POPLA appeal.

 

3.5       The Defendant first became aware of the Claim in communication from DCB Legal Ltd., whereby they Claimed £227.37, broken down into:

 

£140.00  “PCN” (inflated from £80.00/£40.00 by the addition of £60 ‘costs’)

£12.37    “interest”

£25.00    “Court fee”

£50.00    “Solicitor’s costs fixed by the courts

Total Claimed: £227.37

 

Due to the absence of any Particulars, the Defendant suspected that this may be a scam, and sought verification of Claim via DSARs in January 2020 to the Claimant and their Representatives (please see Evidence D).

 

3.6       The DSARs revealed that One Parking Solution had in fact rejected their initial PCN appeal without engaging at all with the Defendant’s reason for challenge or mitigating circumstances. The Rejection is merely a ‘cut-and-paste’ reply, devoid of any particulars, and was sent to the wrong address (please see Evidence E).

 

3.7       It is a fact that the Claimant and their representatives sent key letters relating to PCN OPS126309 to several wrong address, despite the Defendant providing the Claimant with their full and correct address in the initial PCN challenge in 2018. This denied the Defendant the opportunity to settle the PCN or to pursue their right to a POPLA appeal. Thus the Claim for monies beyond the PCN in this case are traceable to the Claimants own administrative error, and are entirely beyond The Defendant’s control.

 

3.8       On 5th of September 2019 DCBL Ltd. sent a Bailiff’s ‘Notice of Debt Recovery’ regarding the PCN to the wrong address. This ‘Notice’ claims £140.00, broken down as ‘unpaid PCN’ plus an additional ‘£50.00+ VAT administration and recovery fee’ and ‘interest’. The Defendant first learnt of this ‘Notice of Debt Recovery’ in January 2020, via DSAR (Please see Evidence F).

 

3.9       On 19th of September 2019, a ‘Legal Recovery Action’ letter was sent, again to the wrong address. This Letter claims a right ‘to obtain [from the Defendant] an attachment of earnings’ to threatens ‘place a charge upon [the Defendant’s] property, and apply for a Warrant of Control to remove goods and Prevent future lending’ should the Defendant ‘fail to pay the sum of £140.00’. The Defendant is of the belief that Bailiff action is not lawful in parking disputes on private land, and that it is unproven on what legal grounds this Bailiff was acting. The Defendant first learnt of this Letter in January 2020 but has not been provided with a copy.

 

3.10     On 26th of September 2019 a new Letter of Claim was again sent to the wrong address, and the Defendant first learnt of the Letter in January 202, via DSAR (please see Evidence G). 

 

3.11     In November 2019 a ‘Statement of Admission’ was sent by the Claimant, to the correct address. The ‘Statement’ Claims £227/37 as well as entitlement to the Defendant’s personal information, including a full breakdown of the Defendant’s financial assets, income, liabilities, outgoings, dependents, and savings. The Defendant assumed the Letter was from an actual Honourable Court and that they were thereby compelled by law to make payment - not as an admission of any liability or breach of contract, but to obey the court and end the threat of further litigation, removal of personal property, and/or reduction of credit rating. The Defendant accordingly offered to pay the amount the Claimant had listed as ‘PCN Charge’ (inflated from £80.00 to £140.00 by the addition of £60.00 ‘costs’) simply to end the matter (Please see Evidence H).

 

3.12     This offer (3.11) was refused by the Claimant, but no reasons for refusal given.

 

3.13     In a letter dated 23rd of January 2020, the Defendant received a DQ signed by a representative of DCB Legal Ltd (name illegible). The DQ states that ‘loose documents/ correspondence/trial bundle’ are included but no such documents were attached or shared with the Defendant (please see Evidence I).

 

3.14     In a telephone call of 3rd February 2021, a Paralegal at DCB Legal Ltd. offered to settle the Claim out of court with ‘No Prejudice’ in a brand new sum of £160.00. The Defendant requested a written breakdown of this new sum but was refused.

 

3.15     In an email dated the 6th of February 2021, DCBL Legal Ltd emailed the Defendant alleging they would ‘SAVE AS TO COSTS’ [sic] if they paid the sum of £160.00 (3.14) ‘no later than 10th February 2021’. The Defendant considered this offer but, without felt that, without Particulars as to the amount, there remained the risk of the Claimant a) continuing with litigation, and b) recovering a Claim that is unproven, not a ‘saving’, and potentially excessive (please see Evidence J).

* rest of the template verbatim *

16.       The Claimant has had many cases struck out previously for similar practices. Most recently, DJ Harvey, on the 5th of February 2020 (One Parking Solution v Ms W - F0HM9E9Z, Lewes County Court) dismissed a similar Claim, stating that One Parking Solution “may face an application a Civil Restraint Order in the event that there are more claims which are dismissed in the same similar manner” (F0HM9E9Z 1).

16.       The Claimant has had many cases struck out previously for similar practices. Most recently, DJ Harvey, on the 5th of February 2020 (One Parking Solution v Ms W - F0HM9E9Z, Lewes County Court) dismissed a similar Claim, stating that One Parking Solution “may face an application a Civil Restraint Order in the event that there are more claims which are dismissed in the same similar manner” (F0HM9E9Z 1).