4 Year Old PCN with bonus PCN

patient_dream

I agree with Coupon .... complain to the BPA 

Professional firms will respond to your extra 30 days request.   We have seen many times that DCBL don't ?

snores

Hi all I've submitted my complaints to the BPA and to my MP.

I received both SARs back today, they have sent me only the initial PCN and the 2 follow up PCNs where the charge has been inflated due to a "debt recovery charge". Despite me asking for them to include the signage at the site, they have failed to do so. For my vehicle, the duration of stay was 2hr and 23mins. And for the other vehicle it was 1hr 44mins. I have no idea what the allowed duration of stay is since they haven't stated.

For the vehicle that is not mine, they have said the following: 

We can confirm that your details were provided to us by the registered keeper as the hirer of the vehicle at the time.

We can confirm that your name and address details, along with details of the outstanding Charge, were passed to Debt Recovery Plus Ltd and Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd who are our Collection Agents on the 16/03/2018 and 18/03/2020 respectively for the purposes of recovering the outstanding amount on the Charge.

I have no idea why they are saying this - no one in my family or friends has ever driven or hired a vehicle with this reg or description. There is no way that a stranger could have given my details. 
Honestly this has shaken me, I don't know how to prove this car has never been owned or driven by me.

Trainerman

Have you ever hired a vehicle from that company? If so, have they confused your records (happened to me once). Also, they will have taken a copy of the actual person's licence and can backtrack. You might have to turn into a bit of a Poirot, but there may be chances there.

Redx

Point of order , there are plenty of ways that a stranger ( or business ) can give your details to a private parking company

People's details are released on line regularly , after company hacks etc , never mind the malicious clowns who may know your name and address and use it to try to hire a vehicle , or to buy something in your name , possibly using your bank details or debit or credit card

Never heard of hacking by hackers ? Or criminals who would rather scam people instead of doing an honest days work

A Poirot approach may well reveal the truth , but nobody can make a statement that says

There is no way that a stranger could have given my details. 

snores

Thanks both @Redx and @Trainerman for your replies. 

I've done some frantic digging and calling and it turns out that the second car was in fact loaned for the day whilst our car was in the dealership for some work  I feel very stupid now. I have grilled them about it in the past few weeks but neither of us remembered anything but now having dug back into their bank records from 2017, they now remember the circumstances. The carpark services 3 big shops (Aldi, M&S Outlet and Go Outdoors) and my partner said that if they were driving (and not another family member) then they were most likely browsing/shopping across those 3 shops over the 2 days. We can't find anything in our bank statements to prove any purchases were made but it may have been that cash was used rather than a card.

So it looks like I am in fact responsible for both PCNs. At the very least, at least now I can confidently try and defend both rather than trying and failing at being Poirot.

The carpark's website states that you may not stay for longer than 90 minutes; both PCNs state times which have exceeded that. Since GroupNexus haven't included any pictures of the signage, I will have to go back to the carpark and get some myself. I have no idea if the signage was insufficient back in 2017 and if they have since upgraded it.

Redx

GN have never complied with POFA , so definitely won't have done so in 2017 , so they will have failed to comply with POFA for Hirer keeper liability , plus if you were not the driver it's a double whammy for GN , no hire docs , non compliant POFA PCN , not the driver , etc

At least you now understand what they are about

Try plan A if no court claims have been issued , plan A is ALWAYS the best option , try the retail park managing agent , not mentioning who was driving , it was the driver who went shopping and browsed , no names , no inferring more than that

D_P_Dance

 the charge has been inflated due to a "debt recovery charge".

Have you read this

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection.

This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and your MP,

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/

snores

D_P_Dance said:

 the charge has been inflated due to a "debt recovery charge".

Have you read this

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection.

This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and your MP,

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/

@D_P_Dance. I'll draft a complaint to the SRA, thanks for providing the info and context. I know that these inflated charges are predatory and included because GN are greedy and threaten with high figures to try and scare people into paying. I have read threads where it's been stated that even if you go to court and lose, you will most likely only have to pay the sum from the original PCN (in my case £95 per PCN). This is mostly why I am trying to hold my nerve and persevere because hopefully then I'm not losing out. Although, in the Letter of Claim, DCB Legal have stated 

"the amount of the debt is £165 which includes the PCN(s) and debt recovery costs. If a claim is issued, further costs will be sought, together with accruing interest at 8% above base rate per annum pursuant to s69 of The County Courts Act 1984".

So an original PCN of £95 has then had more than the £40 added to it, which was their stated debt recovery charge on the PCN. In fact they have added £70 to come to a total of £165. One wonders if they have pulled this figure out of a hat. 

I wonder if they will try to defend their inclusion of accruing interest at 8% though? Or will this also be considered spurious and an attempt at double recovery?

snores

Redx said:

GN have never complied with POFA , so definitely won't have done so in 2017 , so they will have failed to comply with POFA for Hirer keeper liability , plus if you were not the driver it's a double whammy for GN , no hire docs , non compliant POFA PCN , not the driver , etc

At least you now understand what they are about

Try plan A if no court claims have been issued , plan A is ALWAYS the best option , try the retail park managing agent , not mentioning who was driving , it was the driver who went shopping and browsed , no names , no inferring more than that

@Redx.

I have looked at an explanation of Keeper Liability and POFA and in regards to the courtesy car, the original date of infraction was 29/11. If I am to consider it as a "hire car" in this instance, the keeper was the dealership and they had 28 days to identify the driver. That then allows GN to serve a NTK not more than 14 days after the date of the infraction. Would I be correct in my calculation then, that GN had up until 10/1 to serve the NTK? But in fact they surpassed this date as the date on the original PCN was 18/1. As far as myself and my partner can remember, as it was a courtesy car, there were no hire documents to begin with.

I emailed the retail park in December with a complaint but I'll now direct them towards the individual retailers and see if that works.

Redx

All the above are spurious charges , no matter what those figures are , apart from the interest , which has been calculated on the made up sums , not the 2 core charges of the PCNs

Don't get sidetracked by the spurious sums , you object to all of them , and defend against the 2 PCNs at £95 each , plus the allowed court and legal fees