DCB Legal for CP Plus re Road Chef / Moto PCNs – Advice on defence against Claim

Coupon-mad

You mean DCBLegal.  We've seen these work:

laura@dcblegal.co.uk paul@dcblegal.co.uk

larry63

Just as an update, i have also used
yasmin@dcblegal.co.uk
dpocontact@dcblegal.co.uk  (just so they are forced to pass it on)

to see if this email also works and requested the following in the email

Dear Yasmin Mia, Laura, Paul,  DCP Legal Team

RE CCBC Claim Number XXX – PCN 2015 xxxx and    PCN 2016 xxxx RE VRN xxx; £563.01

(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.
(b) I have sent your client a SAR

Please acknowledge receipt and confirmation that this request has been accepted.

Regards

larry63

Got an auto response from one of the email addresses as follows

From: Paul Gorman <paul@dcblegal.co.uk>

Thank you for your email.
 
I am out of the office until 9am on 24 May 2021. Your email has been forwarded to the relevant person to be picked up in my absence.

So that email works, and i have confirmation they have recd it and that it should be forwarded on for action.

Currently no bounce back from any other emails.

larry63

Update

I have also sent 
(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.
(b) I have sent your client a SAR


via there website defendant contact from, and this also gives an acknowledgement of the submission / request.

Cannot post the link to the webpage as i am a newbie

larry63

Okay here is my first draft of my defence.

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

 

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. There were multiple possible drivers on an otherwise unremarkable date. The Defendant cannot recall who the driver was.

 

3.  3. The driver is accused to have entered a contract with the Claimant and in turn, overstayed their time “permitted” within a free of charge carpark. In addition to this, the driver has not been identified by the Claimant and although there is a provision in law under Schedule 4 of  The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA2012) to recover unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s keeper, the Claimant has made little to no effort to comply with the requirements of this act. Most notably, they failed to deliver any notice within the Notice to Keeper that the keeper would become liable. (POFA2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 9, subparagraph 2f). As such, the Defendant has no liability in law.

I appreciate that this is a copy of what has been used in the past by another.  However some quick questions.

Q1. Does section 1 relate to CP Plus Ltd on Moto and Roadchef service stations.  I have read and reread the posts on the forums and just unsure, so i ask the fourm experts for confirmation.

Q2. The claim is for two events, 2015 Roadchef, and 2016 Moto.  We cant even remeber getting a PCN charge notice for the moto one, but do have a few for the Roadchef one. 

We generally remember the car being used by many different through out the year as pople were in the lakes etc, and half of the family live south whilst the other live up orth, although i also work abroad in Spain.

So no way to know who the driver was on any particular day, therefore not who was driving at the time.

However checking the date and time in question, it will have been extremely busy as in the afternoon, and very sunny, and services extremely busy due to peak children holiday times.  The driver would of had to wait for a parking space, massive queues for food, and then waiting ages for table etc.  Then when leving driver would of had to top up and massive queues for disel at the filling pumps no doubt.  Sadly no we dont have rects from back then, and as very old fashioned we all still use cash not cards.  Still try not to use cards for payments.

So do i add to S2 and S3 above about any of this, or leave this for later at WS stage, and hopefully get some SAR info back by then?

Any help would be appreciated ta

Umkomaas

larry63 said:

Update

I have also sent 
(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

You aren't entitled to that once the court claim is live, it only applies before a claim is issued. The clock can't be stopped now, so you must keep going forward. 

D_P_Dance

Have you written bad stuff on TripAdviser, their website and other motoring fora?

larry63

Update - have received a very fast reply from  Ken McMeikan re my Moto PCN email to him.

In his defence he has responded very quickly indeed.

However reply is simply telling me that someone should of paid any notified charge, and asks “why there was no resolution on the original parking charge notice, and following reminder letters”.

My Simple answer is i never got any to my knowledge. 

 

His reply has shown no inclination of the following that i rasied

1.         that he feels the actions by CP Plus and DCB Legal are wrong against Motos customers

2.         any concern or remorse for the stress and issues these actions have on their customers health

3.         that anyone inadvertently staying longer by accident for more than two hours due to falling a sleep is reasonable, even if also buying goods and services

4.         that following govt advice, pulling over and falling asleep and resting  is good practice even if it means the arbitrary 2 hours is exceeded

5.         that the amounts of charges are not fair or has any concern that these will have a severe negative impact on their customers

6.         No concern that these actions relate to 2016.

7.         That these actions are abhorent during the current economic climate casued by Covid 19.

Seems to treat and see customers like Gerald Ratner, you can think and treat them all as idiots whatever the consequences.... until it becomes obvious to everyone that you are doing so.

And trying to charge an owner of a vehicle, for an unknown driver who would of simply been having a nap before completing a journey that has 200 miles / four hours still to go, is not how a CEO of a motoring hospitality company should be allowing anyone ultimately acting upon his behalf to be doing..

D_P_Dance

Write some vey bad stuff on their website, twitter, Facebook, TrioAdvisor et al, complain to your local media  MP, and various motoring forums,   The only way to shut down these scammers is to shame the companies which employ them 

larry63

Thanks everyone for the advice todate.
Could anyone experieced in the defence side of things review my first draft as only have a about three days to now submit.

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

 

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. There were multiple possible drivers on an otherwise unremarkable date. The Defendant cannot recall who the driver was.

 

3.  3. The driver is accused to have entered a contract with the Claimant and in turn, overstayed their time “permitted” within a free of charge carpark. In addition to this, the driver has not been identified by the Claimant and although there is a provision in law under Schedule 4 of  The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA2012) to recover unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s keeper, the Claimant has made little to no effort to comply with the requirements of this act. Most notably, they failed to deliver any notice within the Notice to Keeper that the keeper would become liable. (POFA2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 9, subparagraph 2f). As such, the Defendant has no liability in law.

I appreciate that this is a copy of what has been used in the past by another.  However some quick questions.

Q1. Does section 1 relate to CP Plus Ltd on Moto and Roadchef service stations.  I have read and reread the posts on the forums and just unsure, so i ask the fourm experts for confirmation.

Q2. The claim is for two events, 2015 Roadchef, and 2016 Moto.  We cant even remeber getting a PCN charge notice for the moto one, but do have a few for the Roadchef one. 

We can generally remember the day of the Roadchef one, not who was driving at the time, but that it was extremely busy as in the afternoon, and very sunny, and services were extremely busy due to peak children holiday times.  Had to wait for a parking space, massive queues for food, and then waited ages for table etc.  Then when leving  had to top up and massive queues for disel at the filling pumps.  Sadly no we dont have rects from back then, and very old fashioned still use cash not cards.  Still try not to use cards for payments.

So do i add to S2 and S3 above about any of this, or leave this for later at WS stage, and hopefully get some SAR info back by then?

Any help would be appreciated ta