Overstayed Parking

Stinge

Hi,

Please let me know if you need more details - I am being vague as I am not sure details are wise to include to keep it anonymous.

I have now received a county court claim form for an alleged parking contravention in February 2020.  

I had received letters about this but ignored these up to the sending of a 'letter of claim'.  At which point I made a SAR.  In the SAR request I included the letter of claim I received as proof of identity, it shows my name and address.  They wrote back asking for my full name, first line of address and postcode.  There was no further communication regarding this.  Does this constitute  a failure on their part to service my SAR, and if so could it be part of my defence?

At no point in the SAR process or elsewhere have I identified the driver.  Is there any value in still not admitting I was the driver?

Thanks

D_P_Dance

Have they added an unlawful £60?  Have you read the nrewbies?  Have you complained to your MP?

Umkomaas

Which parking firm and which legal firm is representing them. No need for any MI5 stuff, please. 

What is the Date of Issue shown on the claim form?  Give us that and forum regular @KeithP will provide you with some important information for getting your defence underway. 

Have you read the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, because everything you need to do is contained there. 

Stinge

Hi D_P.  I will check the amount when I get back to the file, I suspect so as the amount now is 170 + interest + 50 legal costs + court fee.

I will make the complaint to MP later today.

 I have read the newbies thread and I didn't so far find answers to my questions, but happy to go back if I need to look again?

Thanks

Fruitcake

Complain to "them", whoever they are, that you have not had a response to your SAR and give them one week to rectify the problem. If they fail to respond or fail to supply you with your data, complain about "them" to the ICO.

Look up the requirements on the ICO website regarding an SAR and quote the relevant parts to "them" in your complaint.

The advice to ignore a PCN has not been given here since the law changed in 2012, so it looks like you were using old out of date information about ignoring.

Nobody can answer your last question because we don't have enough information to make an informed decision. My advice therefore is to stick to the default decision not to reveal the driver's identity until you have determined whether this will help or hinder your case.

D_P_Dance

 as the amount now is 170

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/

Stinge

Thanks.  Ill make that complaint now.  The original amount was 100, reduced to 60, so they have added 70.  I cant think of much more for a defence other than the additional amount mainly because it was so long ago now.  Is there a good chance it will be thrown out on that basis?

Coupon-mad

No, that's not a defence.  You can look at the signs on GoogleStreetview by changing the date.

We will need these answers please, to help further:

Which parking firm and which legal firm is representing them. No need for any MI5 stuff, please. 

What is the Date of Issue shown on the claim form?  Give us that and forum regular @KeithP will provide you with some important information for getting your defence underway. 

Stinge

Thanks Coupon-Mad.  I didn't know it was possible to do that!  The following link shows the sign.

Grays, England - Google Maps

I have checked the versions that Google Street View shows either side of the parking date and its the same sign throughout.

Parking firm is CP PLUS LTD T/A GROUPNEXUS.  Legal firm is DCB Legal Ltd.  Issue date 7/1/22.  AoS was submitted 15th and received 17th.

KeithP

Stinge said:

 Issue date 7/1/22.  AoS was submitted 15th and received 17th.

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 9th February 2022 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Stinge

Do you think I could argue that that sign was not clear enough.  This happened before dawn and the sign is not lit.