6 Year old Parking Ticket County Court Claim

KeithP

As @Redx says, there have been recent successes.

Read these (just two I found by sticking Moto in the forum's search facility)...

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78045092

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78172604

beamerguy

Tinytim12356 said:

So yesterday i received a county court claim from DCD legal stating that my car was in breach of contract at a service station back in 2015.


Details

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle ******* at “Service Station in Question”.

2.The PCN details are **/**/2015 ************

3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on 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 POCN(s) is outstanding. 

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1.  £170 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 here of at a daily rate of £0.04 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees 

Amount claimed - 249.49

Court fee - 25.00

Legal representative's Costs - 50.00

Total amount - 324.49

- Reasons Not liable

The Car Park in question is at a free service station with a 2 hour time limit that I apparently exceeded

I was very tired after working a 16 hour shift

Did not see any signage alluding to the suggested time limit - this was not helped by it being dark and during the early hours of the morning 

Have moved house 4 times since that date, so I have not received any prior information to this day

I have read the "newbies" thread and completely understand the process that I need to go through and have currently requested a SARS from DCB Legal. 

I'll be sending off my AOS after day 5 as instructed.

After reading through the defence template, is there anything that I would need to alter/replace to suit my case (i.e. service station car park, not residential)? 

I'd be grateful for any further advice. 

When is the ticket dated please >>> very important ?

The parking ticket was NEVER £170 ...... DCBL ARE SCAMMING YOU LIKE THEY TRY WITH EVERYONE DCBL have added a fake £70 calling it damages .... there is no such thing as damages

The Contract entitles C to damages.   What contract ?  They must show you a contract that you agreed to.  Back in 2015 non of this fake scam rubbish existed  

Amount claimed - 249.49 ?
Without actually giving a figure they are misleadng you and the court ?   This includes what they call interest, £79,49 ?   Judges normally don't allow this especially as currently interest rates are around 0%
This is cloud dreaming stuff by DCBL

The case is for a 2015 claim and everything relates around the issue date of the ticket. Even DCBL do not have a TARDIS to fake it into 2021

Who signed the statement of truth for DCBL ...... ???

SO, the date of the parking ticket please

Tinytim12356

The original date of the parking ticket was from 20/06/2015

the statment of truth was signed by Yasmin Mia.

Redx

So they issued a court claim within 2 months before the 6 year statute kicked in

beamerguy

Tinytim12356 said:

The original date of the parking ticket was from 20/06/2015

the statment of truth was signed by Yasmin Mia.

Very close to the 6 year time limit.   No problem but is Yasmin telling the truth about damages ?

The only contract you entered into was the signs in the car park.  So, you need pictures of the signs in 2015 .... not 2021

As DCBL and Yasmin think the signs made mention of damages then they must prove this.
The SAR to the PPC to provide pictures for 2015 (not in 2021) is vital.  I doubt they will have such pictures ?

If the signs do not mention damages, Yasmin has a very big problem, contempt of court being one

Coupon-mad

Redx said:

So they issued a court claim within 2 months before the 6 year statute kicked in

OMG,  all the OP needed to do was respond to the Letter before Claim and string it along with questions and no claim could have been filed.

Oh well, at least he/she now knows that MOTO are cancelling these (but that is MUST still be defended, just in case).

Tinytim12356

Coupon-mad said:

Redx said:

So they issued a court claim within 2 months before the 6 year statute kicked in

OMG,  all the OP needed to do was respond to the Letter before Claim and string it along with questions and no claim could have been filed.

Oh well, at least he/she now knows that MOTO are cancelling these (but that is MUST still be defended, just in case).

That is true yes but when i received the letter a month or so ago i had not come across your forum and just deemed it as a scam. I did email MOTOs appeals team then but was only told as my 30 days was over there was nothing they could do, which is onbvious as it was 6 years ago. 
That being said i have now found out there appeals go directly to CP Plus Ltd and not moto.

So as well as now emailing the CEO of Moto i also emailed the general enquiries at moto and they responded.

"Thank you for contacting Moto.
I am sorry to hear that you received a PCN for your visit to Moto service station in 2015.

According to Group Nexus’ records the vehicle ******* entered Service station car Park on 20 Jun 2015 at 03:51 and exited on the same day at 07:27, which means the visit exceeded the free 2 hour limit.

The following correspondence was sent by Group Nexus / CP Plus to the registered keeper of the vehicle:
1st Letter: 30 Jun 2015
2nd Letter: 17 Jul 2015
3rd Letter: 03 Aug 2015

Having received no response, Group Nexus / CP Plus passed the matter to Debt Recovery Plus Limited on 13 December 2019. The case was then passed back to DCBL on 12 April 2021 because the case has reached the legal team for possible court action.

As this case is now with DCBL we do not have access to this data and are unable to do anything about it. However taking into consideration your circumstances at the time of your visits to Moto Hilton on that day I could ask Group Nexus / CP Plus to consider to accept £170 to settle the case.

 Please let me know if you would accept this settlement so that we can get the process started.

 Kind Regards"


I obviously received none of these letters stated, i will wait to hear back from the CEO to see if he can add anything.

The_Slithy_Tove

beamerguy said:

Amount claimed - 249.49 ?
Without actually giving a figure they are misleadng you and the court ?   This includes what they call interest, £79,49 ?   Judges normally don't allow this especially as currently interest rates are around 0%
This is cloud dreaming stuff by DCBL

One could also question why they waited nearly 6 years to make a claim, rather than, say, 5 1/2 years ago, making the interest charge rather cheeky (non-legal term).

And it's interest on the additional (unlawful?) £70 anyway.

Coupon-mad

Reply along these lines:


Dear xxxxxxx, 

Please don't insult my intelligence; no-one would pay that ludicrous sum of money and it is astonishing MOTO is now suggesting it.  Your unhelpful and data-intrusive response speaks volumes about what MOTO must think about motorists.

According to online sources, recently MOTO have considered the interests of their customers first and your CEO has been cancelling these cases for victims (yes, at court claim stage) and yet, MOTO has now decided not to do so for me - why?  Have you stopped bothering?  Correct me if I am wrong but in my opinion, this sounds like MOTO have been told to leave these cases alone.  This is given away by the detail of your reply, which can only have come from CP Plus (Group Nexus). 

Why has your parking firm been sharing with you, data about my vehicle that they'd previously archived for six years and (even worse) dates and details of unregulated bullyboy debt recovery letters that I was bombarded with?   Why do you think it's acceptable for you to process and store private information about 'debt' letters posted to me?  Are MOTO in the habit of receiving, discussing and processing private data that should never be shared with you?   You may not realise this but my VRM and information about the various horrific debt firms who have been passing my data around, is not something that MOTO should be party to and I intend to report both companies to the Information Commissioner's Office ('ICO').  

MOTO's attitude, by supporting a private parking firm over and above my data privacy rights and interests makes me and my family furious with your company and we intend to boycott your services in future.   Also, MOTO are on record in a newspaper article, stating that when drivers genuinely sleep or rest and do not see the signs, parking charges will be cancelled.  Not any more, then?  A revised newspaper article must be long overdue - how dare you allow a contractor from a rogue industry to treat people like this?

Why the climbdown from your previous position in these cases?  I wish to escalate my complaint to your CEO because this is atrocious and I am currently being sued for an event from several years ago where the driver was clearly resting at that time of night.  Isn't that what MOTO is for: ''take a break, tiredness kills''?  Were MOTO aware that the added £70 is false and has never been incurred?  No doubt you will believe the parking firm but there has been no payment and the claim against me is enhanced and exaggerated.  And as for the extortionate £100 'parking charge' - do you actually think that people accepted that, based on tiny writing on poorly-lit signs in the dark?

 Have you asked your parking firm how many of your customers they have decided are fair game to make up their financial shortfall or are you letting the tail wag the dog and leaving them to their own devices now?  Surely this greedy batch of court claims against unsuspecting, honest people like me is not something that MOTO supports?  Is this really the line MOTO want to be seen to take when Group Nexus scrape the barrel of 2015 PCNs just because they couldn't fine many people last year?  I can defend my case as I received the claim, but there must be hundreds more who have moved house and will get CCJs, ruining credit ratings for stopping at services six years ago.  What a way for a household name Motorway Services firm to treat motorists.

I require that MOTO now escalate my complaint to your CEO because I am required to show the ICO that I complained about the unlawful sharing of my personal data before I can raise a formal complaint for data misuse against you and your newly-litigious contractor.

beamerguy

Group Nexus appear to have taken over the brains of MOTO ?

Clearly there is a cartel going on ?

Driving along any motorway we all see the signs   "Tiredness KILLS ... Take a break ?

So, do we die because of Tiredness or driving on a smart motorway. 

Ask The Rt Hon Granr Shapps MP ..the Transport Minister