PCN - Premier Parking Logistics

Le_Kirk

akramir said:

Folks - Just following up on this. Do I have a chance of winning with my defence or is it time to hand in the towel?

a bit disappointed that I followed all recommendations on this forum only now it seems very likely that down at this late that my defense defence is looking weak…. And they may take me to court hence my fees is only likely to increase…

Would appreciate urgent advise on this so I can plan my next move.

I cannot see (having just reread the whole thread), that you have received a formal claim form (N1) from CCBC; nor can I actually see a defence that you have posted.  I assume that you have received letter of/before claim as you have written a response to DCB Legal.  Can you tell us: -
1.  Did you receive a response to the letter you sent to DCB Legal?
2.  Have you received a N1 claim form?
3.  If so, what is the date of issue of it?
4.  And further, what date did you complete the AoS if the answer to 2 is yes?

akramir

Le_Kirk said:

akramir said:

Folks - Just following up on this. Do I have a chance of winning with my defence or is it time to hand in the towel?

a bit disappointed that I followed all recommendations on this forum only now it seems very likely that down at this late that my defense defence is looking weak…. And they may take me to court hence my fees is only likely to increase…

Would appreciate urgent advise on this so I can plan my next move.

I cannot see (having just reread the whole thread), that you have received a formal claim form (N1) from CCBC; nor can I actually see a defence that you have posted.  I assume that you have received letter of/before claim as you have written a response to DCB Legal.  Can you tell us: -
1.  Did you receive a response to the letter you sent to DCB Legal?
2.  Have you received a N1 claim form?
3.  If so, what is the date of issue of it?
4.  And further, what date did you complete the AoS if the answer to 2 is yes?

Hello!

I received a notice of claim that I need to respond to in the next couple of days before the 30 days are over…

so 2,3,4 is N/A right now.

Before I send that over I’m a little apprehensive as they may add additional fees (if defence isn’t strong enough) on top of the £160 and then either ask me to pay or take me to court.

Am I on the the right track here? 

Cheers!

Le_Kirk

They won't see your defence until they issue a court claim form via MCOL.  If you are referring to your response to the letter of/before claim, that is not a defence!  If you have read the NEWBIE sticky you will not see any advice about writing any letter, not least a defence nor filling in their financial forms.  You submit a SAR, you tell the claimant or their legal that you deny any debt exists and require them to put the claim on hold for a minimum of 30 days whilst you seek debt advice.  The claimant cannot add any additional fees on top at any time, it is £100 for the original parking charge PLUS the claim fee, hearing fee and, in some circumstances, legal costs .  Even the £160 that you quote is incorrect because they have already tried to add £60 debt admin costs.  These additional costs are being outlawed by the Government's new parking code of practice which was announced last week.  Read this thread: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333036/breaking-news-government-has-announced-the-statutory-code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1

akramir

Le_Kirk said:

They won't see your defence until they issue a court claim form via MCOL.  If you are referring to your response to the letter of/before claim, that is not a defence!  If you have read the NEWBIE sticky you will not see any advice about writing any letter, not least a defence nor filling in their financial forms.  You submit a SAR, you tell the claimant or their legal that you deny any debt exists and require them to put the claim on hold for a minimum of 30 days whilst you seek debt advice.  The claimant cannot add any additional fees on top at any time, it is £100 for the original parking charge PLUS the claim fee, hearing fee and, in some circumstances, legal costs .  Even the £160 that you quote is incorrect because they have already tried to add £60 debt admin costs.  These additional costs are being outlawed by the Government's new parking code of practice which was announced last week.  Read this thread: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333036/breaking-news-government-has-announced-the-statutory-code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1

Thank you. 

In summary no further action is therefore being recommended i.e. ignore the response required by Letter of Claim apart from SAR request and telling PPL to put claim on hold. Both these actions have been done already. 

I just wait for them for them to issue the claim court? 

Umkomaas

akramir said:

Le_Kirk said:

They won't see your defence until they issue a court claim form via MCOL.  If you are referring to your response to the letter of/before claim, that is not a defence!  If you have read the NEWBIE sticky you will not see any advice about writing any letter, not least a defence nor filling in their financial forms.  You submit a SAR, you tell the claimant or their legal that you deny any debt exists and require them to put the claim on hold for a minimum of 30 days whilst you seek debt advice.  The claimant cannot add any additional fees on top at any time, it is £100 for the original parking charge PLUS the claim fee, hearing fee and, in some circumstances, legal costs .  Even the £160 that you quote is incorrect because they have already tried to add £60 debt admin costs.  These additional costs are being outlawed by the Government's new parking code of practice which was announced last week.  Read this thread: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333036/breaking-news-government-has-announced-the-statutory-code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1

Thank you. 

In summary no further action is therefore being recommended i.e. ignore the response required by Letter of Claim apart from SAR request and telling PPL to put claim on hold. Both these actions have been done already. 

I just wait for them for them to issue the claim court? 

No, you tell the solicitors to put the case on hold while you seek debt advice, not the PPC. You start that letter by telling the solicitors you deny any debt and any court case they bring will be defended robustly. 

akramir

Umkomaas said:

akramir said:

Le_Kirk said:

They won't see your defence until they issue a court claim form via MCOL.  If you are referring to your response to the letter of/before claim, that is not a defence!  If you have read the NEWBIE sticky you will not see any advice about writing any letter, not least a defence nor filling in their financial forms.  You submit a SAR, you tell the claimant or their legal that you deny any debt exists and require them to put the claim on hold for a minimum of 30 days whilst you seek debt advice.  The claimant cannot add any additional fees on top at any time, it is £100 for the original parking charge PLUS the claim fee, hearing fee and, in some circumstances, legal costs .  Even the £160 that you quote is incorrect because they have already tried to add £60 debt admin costs.  These additional costs are being outlawed by the Government's new parking code of practice which was announced last week.  Read this thread: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333036/breaking-news-government-has-announced-the-statutory-code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1

Thank you. 

In summary no further action is therefore being recommended i.e. ignore the response required by Letter of Claim apart from SAR request and telling PPL to put claim on hold. Both these actions have been done already. 

I just wait for them for them to issue the claim court? 

No, you tell the solicitors to put the case on hold while you seek debt advice, not the PPC. You start that letter by telling the solicitors you deny any debt and any court case they bring will be defended robustly. 

Confirmed - that’s what I did! Attaching the below..

Snakes_Belly

I would read comment from Bargepole regarding the new Code of Practice. Whilst it is not in force yet it may be persuasive particulalry in relation to the £60.00/£70.00 add on. Bargepole has included a paragraph to include in your defence in this thread. It would be to your advantage to included that paragraph.

I think that it is worth taking this as far as it can go. Worse case scenario is not likely to be much more than they are already asking for.     

Snakes_Belly

This is the paragraph that Bargepole has written to add to defences. The Code of Practice has not come into force yet but it may be persuasive. It is definitely worth including this paragraph in your defence. 

This is law but not yet effective it completely knocks out any debt collector charges. 


"This is the suggested paragraph I posted on another thread earlier this week:

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') has published, as of 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking Operators are required to comply with. This states, as Section 9, that 'The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.'  In the present case, the Claimant has added a sum of [INSERT FIGURE HERE], described as '[INSERT DESCRIPTION HERE]', which is clearly contrary to the intention of the Code. Whilst it is accepted that the new statutory Code does not take full effect immediately, it clearly sets out the Government's intentions regarding private parking, and the Court is invited to strike out this element of the claim, irrespective of the determination of any other element."

akramir

Snakes_Belly said:

This is the paragraph that Bargepole has written to add to defences. The Code of Practice has not come into force yet but it may be persuasive. It is definitely worth including this paragraph in your defence. 

This is law but not yet effective it completely knocks out any debt collector charges. 


"This is the suggested paragraph I posted on another thread earlier this week:

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') has published, as of 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking Operators are required to comply with. This states, as Section 9, that 'The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.'  In the present case, the Claimant has added a sum of [INSERT FIGURE HERE], described as '[INSERT DESCRIPTION HERE]', which is clearly contrary to the intention of the Code. Whilst it is accepted that the new statutory Code does not take full effect immediately, it clearly sets out the Government's intentions regarding private parking, and the Court is invited to strike out this element of the claim, irrespective of the determination of any other element."

Thank you! I appreciate the advise and I need that Code of practice is definitely a game changer.

When you mention include in your defence I presume you mean that that’s what I state in my defence when they issue me with an actual court claim, and no action is needed at this time until I hear from them. Please kindly confirm.

KeithP

akramir said:

Snakes_Belly said:

This is the paragraph that Bargepole has written to add to defences. The Code of Practice has not come into force yet but it may be persuasive. It is definitely worth including this paragraph in your defence. 

This is law but not yet effective it completely knocks out any debt collector charges. 


"This is the suggested paragraph I posted on another thread earlier this week:

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') has published, as of 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking Operators are required to comply with. This states, as Section 9, that 'The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.'  In the present case, the Claimant has added a sum of [INSERT FIGURE HERE], described as '[INSERT DESCRIPTION HERE]', which is clearly contrary to the intention of the Code. Whilst it is accepted that the new statutory Code does not take full effect immediately, it clearly sets out the Government's intentions regarding private parking, and the Court is invited to strike out this element of the claim, irrespective of the determination of any other element."

When you mention include in your defence I presume you mean that that’s what I state in my defence when they issue me with an actual court claim, and no action is needed at this time until I hear from them. Please kindly confirm.

That's right.