County Court Business Centre - Excel Parking

HWOOD17

Been quiet up until today, but there has since been some activity.  Sent my defence on 13th September and received a letter from HM Courts and Tribunals dated 14th September acknowledging receipt of my defence.  I also emailed copies of my defence to Excel Parking and DCB Legal on 15th September and got an automated reply from the latter saying they had received my email.  

As I say nothing more than that until today, but have just got home to a letter from DCB Legal saying that their client intends to proceed with the claim, but are offering the chance to settle within 7 days.  They have also included a copy of a Directions questionnaire, which they have filled out on behalf of Excel Parking, which am I right in thinking is a bit bizarre given they aren't the claimant?  Anyway, just going to ignore this as per advice in the sticky and await official paperwork from the Court.  

Just a a quick question at this point - the letter from the Courts and Tribunal Service states the claimant must contact the court within 28 days of receiving a copy of your defence or the claim will be stayed.  Who rules on when this 28 day period starts, as I emailed them my defence on the 15th so that 28 days elapsed today.  I suspect though that the County Court Business Centre allow these companies to carry out their shocking practices pretty much at will and that they can say they received the defence at a date that suits.  

On a separate note, I sent a SAR to Excel Parking along with a copy of a Council bill as proof of identity.  I have had an email back from Mark Robinson, Debt & Litigation Manager, asking me to provide a charge notice number or vehicle registration number before they can proceed.  Surely that isn't right under GDPR law, as I have given my name, current address and previous address.  Why would I need to give a charge notice number or vehicle registration number when requesting information that they hold about me?

KeithP

HWOOD17 said:

As I say nothing more than that until today, but have just got home to a letter from DCB Legal saying that their client intends to proceed with the claim, but are offering the chance to settle within 7 days.  They have also included a copy of a Directions questionnaire, which they have filled out on behalf of Excel Parking, which am I right in thinking is a bit bizarre given they aren't the claimant?

DCB Legal are instructed by Excel to deal with this claim on Excel's behalf. Nothing unusual there.

HWOOD17 said:

Anyway, just going to ignore this as per advice in the sticky and await official paperwork from the Court. 

That's fine.

HWOOD17 said:

Just a a quick question at this point - the letter from the Courts and Tribunal Service states the claimant must contact the court within 28 days of receiving a copy of your defence or the claim will be stayed.  Who rules on when this 28 day period starts, as I emailed them my defence on the 15th so that 28 days elapsed today.  I suspect though that the County Court Business Centre allow these companies to carry out their shocking practices pretty much at will and that they can say they received the defence at a date that suits.

As you say, the CCBC sent you a letter saying the Claimant had twenty eight days to consider your Defence.

What you don't know is when the CCBC sent a copy of your Defence to the Claimant. 

It follows from that that it is not known when the Claimant has to respond to the CCBC. 

Further, we don't know what delays there are in the CCBC that means they don't send you a DQ as promptly as you might like.

Can I suggest that you keep checking your MCOL Claim History and as soon as you see that the CCBC has sent a DQ to you, you are ready to download a DQ, complete it and fire it back to the CCBC, remembering to send a copy to the Claimant of course.

HWOOD17 said:

On a separate note, I sent a SAR to Excel Parking along with a copy of a Council bill as proof of identity.  I have had an email back from Mark Robinson, Debt & Litigation Manager, asking me to provide a charge notice number or vehicle registration number before they can proceed.  Surely that isn't right under GDPR law, as I have given my name, current address and previous address.  Why would I need to give a charge notice number or vehicle registration number when requesting information that they hold about me?

You could, if you like, remind them that they are obliged to return all information about you regardless of whether there have been one or more PCNs and regardless of whether one or more vehicles are involved.
Alternatively, you could send them the VRM and PCN no. - they already have those details - no harm in supplying them again.

HWOOD17

Thanks for taking the time to post the replies Keith.  It did say in the letter from the CCBC that a copy of my defence had been sent to the Claimant, but just seems like yet another process that can be abused by these shameless charlatans.  Will keep checking the MCOL.

Must admit that I am a little tempted to speak to DCB Legal regarding a settlement and offer them a token sum, as at least I could then say that I did offer and they were inflexible if / when this does go to court, but not sure if that would impact on my defence in any way.  

I feel that the SAR reply is just a flagrant attempt to frustrate, delay and obstruct.  I sent proof of my name and current address (also added my only other previous address) and asked for all information they have pertaining to me, not just a specific case.  Will check with the Governance Department at my work as to whether they can reject a reasonable request like that where clear proof of identity has been provided.

KeithP

HWOOD17 said:

Thanks for taking the time to post the replies Keith.  It did say in the letter from the CCBC that a copy of my defence had been sent to the Claimant, but just seems like yet another process that can be abused by these shameless charlatans.  Will keep checking the MCOL.

OK, so you know that your Defence was sent to the Claimant before a particular date.
That still leaves 'unknowns', which in fairness may not be down to the Claimant, such that you can only make a rough guess on when you might get a DQ from the CCBC.

HWOOD17 said:

Must admit that I am a little tempted to speak to DCB Legal regarding a settlement and offer them a token sum, as at least I could then say that I did offer and they were inflexible if / when this does go to court, but not sure if that would impact on my defence in any way.  

I respectfully suggest that that is a bad idea. It will look like you consider yourself 'guilty' but are just trying to reduce the liability.

HWOOD17 said:

I feel that the SAR reply is just a flagrant attempt to frustrate, delay and obstruct.  I sent proof of my name and current address (also added my only other previous address) and asked for all information they have pertaining to me, not just a specific case.  Will check with the Governance Department at my work as to whether they can reject a reasonable request like that where clear proof of identity has been provided.

You are of course right. That's all it is - a flagrant attempt to frustrate, delay and obstruct.
Or it could indeed be simple incompetence - maybe their database is so poorly constructed such that they are unable to find data based on a person's name. This is not a valid excuse though.

Coupon-mad

Must admit that I am a little tempted to speak to DCB Legal regarding a settlement and offer them a token sum, as at least I could then say that I did offer and they were inflexible if / when this does go to court, but not sure if that would impact on my defence in any way.  

Don't even think about it.

This would not help your position as you can't talk during the main part of your hearing about offers made on a 'without prejudice' basis, and DCBLegal will not accept less,  it is entirely pointless and you don't want to be speaking to these people.

Stop thinking the onus is on you to settle. Far more commonly, they give up.  There is no risk here as long as you follow all our advice.

HWOOD17

Thanks both for advice.  Amazingly got to speak to someone purporting to be the legal person at Excel this morning about the SAR.  Was initially told that he wasn't in, but then amazingly got through after telling the person in no uncertain terms "what I wanted to speak to him about".  

Got what I expected really, a load of rubbish that was contradictory to what had been written in the email.  I did ask what system they were using where they couldn't find my details after I had provided them with my name and address, and if they couldn't find my details from that information, how sending a vehicle registration would help.

Have spoken to the ICO, who suggested that I file a complaint, so going to do that.  What a bunch of absolute charlatans they really are.

D_P_Dance

Why on earth did you telephone a PPC?  If this goes to court you will need a paper trail.  

HWOOD17

I only called about the SAR and made no mention at all about the case.  Have got an email trail with them.

Coupon-mad

No-one on this forum phones Excel. Why?!

HWOOD17

Frustration with their delaying tactics got the better of me I guess.  As I say, made no mention of the case, just spoke to their legal guy about the SAR request I sent.