Are the £70 recovery add ons still disputable/thrown out at court?

patient_dream

Paradigm said:

DCB Legal/CP Plus. Just had the LBA (yesterday), not me but my sister.

Sadly she appealed the PCN naming herself as the driver before I knew anything about it. I've told her to send SAR to CPP but haven't done anything about DCBL yet.

Brief story, she's disabled with badge & parked in a motorway services disabled bay but overstayed the free 2 hour parking by 22 mins. DCBL asking for £170 instead of the £100 on the PCN.

How do DCBL explain the fake £70 ?
THEIR CURRENT FEEBLE REASON IS .. DAMAGES ???

If so, who are the "damages" payable to ?   It must be MOTO as Group Nexus / CP Plus are only a hired parking cowboy NOT THE LANDOWNER

DCBL are scamming you.   Ask them who are the damages owed to. ?

And do not be confused that GROUP NEXUS is some huge organisation ..... they are a simple two man band
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11309569/officers

MOTO are a disgrace, at one time they would cancel these thickets but now we can only assume they get commission from CP Plus

Why would anyone stop at MOTO, everything is far too expensive and they employ a parking cowboy 

So, asking DCBL about damages will be very important ... they will ignore which is great, they will have to explain to a judge and as it's a fake, the courts do not like fakers 
NOR DO THE SRA

In the end, DCBL have a simple choice, get spanked in court or discontinue
LET US KNOW THEIR ANSWER ...... IF THEY CAN

Coupon-mad

Aha, it was copied from a defence about shops! The OP can adjust it to suit!

Umkomaas

@Paradigm, have you read this thread?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

95Rollers

It depends on the Judge. Many have been known in the past to strike out cases before they got to the courtroom, some struck out in court and some will allow the cases to continue and then look past that, but not allow it even if the parking company wins as there is no £70 fee to pay debt collectors because the fact that it got to court means they failed to collect! If they succeeded then there would be no court so who is this £70 going to? I raised this up in my court defence and highlighted the parking firms refusal to answer this. This wasn't what won me the case, but it all helps and is worth pursuing. It shows the Judge and PPCs that you're not a mug as you've taken time out to research and know that this practise of double recovery isn't right! ALWAYS mention this as you cannot assume every judge is clued up.

Le_Kirk

Fruitcake said:

C-m, this comment doesn't make sense.

"Whilst the fixed policy of a free parking time may be sufficient for able-bodied patrons if of the shops, this is not sufficient for the Defendant's needs."

Maybe should be as above.

Paradigm

Umkomaas said:

@Paradigm, have you read this thread?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

I'm getting through it  I don't have a lot of time during the week though.

Umkomaas

Paradigm said:

Umkomaas said:

@Paradigm, have you read this thread?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

I'm getting through it  I don't have a lot of time during the week though.

I wouldn't plough through it post by post, just skim read - they all essentially say the same thing, confirming that if you follow all the necessary steps required of you by the court process you will edge DCB Legal and their client closer to the discontinuation cliff edge, with the prospect that your case too will be discontinued. 

Paradigm

OK... a quick update, after sending the email suggested by c-m in post RE Equality act 2010 she has received this response from MOTO.

Thank you for bringing these details to our attention.

 

Moto is aware of the needs of all our visitors, including those with protected characteristics. That’s why we’re proud to have more Changing Places facilities than any other motorway service area in the UK as just one example, and we’re working hard to roll out even more.

 

Due to Privacy regulation Moto does not have access to the details of your appeal, and as your e-mail does not share any specifics around how you felt we failed make such adjustments to your visit at Severn View, we would like to ask with your consent to have your case re-reviewed by our Parking Operator.

 

Please let me know if you are happy for me to send your correspondence to GroupNexus and ask them to contact you directly to discuss your case.

 

Regards,

Nadia

Group nexus/CPP have been sent the same mail!

Seems to me they are trying to evade their responsibilities but what do I know?

Surely MOTO "employ" these people & set out the parameters, have overall control?

Coupon-mad

Sounds good to me...it puts a level of pressure on Group Nexus that might see them cancel to keep MOTO sweet.

Fruitcake

I agree with C-m. Do it anyway but remind Moto that as principal they are jointly and severally liable for their actions and the actions of their agents.
I suggest your sister asks for the court action to be suspended during this investigation.
Did your sister send the 30 days hold instruction?

The EA 2010 requires service providers to anticipate the needs of a disabled person/person with protected characteristics and such must make anticipatory reasonable adjustments to accommodate them and comply with the Act.
Whilst providing sufficient Changing Places is one anticipatory adjustment, allowing a disabled motorist more time than an able-bodied person would be a reasonable anticipatory adjustment as well. 

Not making these adjustments in advance is indirect discrimination as defined by the Act. Once you have been made aware of a disabled person's needs, to pursue them or allow your agent to pursue them becomes direct discrimination.

Has she complained to her MP about this discrimination against a disabled person?