UKPC/DCB Legal County Court Claim Brunel Uni (ParkMobile app issue)

ChrisTred

Thanks - have left in all the template paragraphs then - and the POPLA one.. any last advice from anyone before I send this?..

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the hirer and driver of the vehicle in question.

 

3. The Defendant was visiting Brunel University for the first time and parked in an advertised ‘pay and display’ area.  The pay and display parking machines had been altered to not accept cash payment, therefore the Defendant had to phone the number on the adjacent pay and display machine and pay via card payment.  This involved registering with ParkMobile Access as a new customer, and verbally stating the car registration number to an automated voice recognition system.  The system confirmed the car registration number via an electronic voice and the Defendant was confident the correct registration number had been logged.  The Defendant then received a text message (at 09:42hrs) confirming account set up with ParkMobile Access, but this did not confirm the car registration number.  The system offered to view invoice history via a web link, but the Defendant did not have internet/mobile data access in order to view this and there was no phone number given to confirm.

 

4. The Defendant paid the correct amount for the parking period (£6.00 for 09:44hrs-15:44hrs) and was parked in the correct ‘pay and display’ parking area, yet returned to their car to find a Parking Charge Notice.  The Defendant then received another text message from ParkMobile Access (at 15:36hrs) to inform that the parking period was ending soon – this was the first time the logged car registration had been shown, and this highlighted that the car registration number had been incorrectly logged by the system (a one digit error).  The "S" of "[Reg]" had been incorrectly registered as an "F".  This error occurred due to flaws in the ParkMobile Access system – firstly due to problems with the accuracy of the voice recognition and expression system which could not distinguish an ‘S’ from an ‘F’; secondly due to the set-up process whereby the car registration number/parking period was not confirmed by text message until the end of the parking period.  Had the system sent a confirmatory text at the beginning of the parking period, this error could have been corrected.  

 

5. The Defendant appealed the PCN, explaining the above and providing an invoice from ParkMobile Access to prove the one digit error and correct payment for the parking period.  However, the Claimant has not acted in good faith and in accordance with BPA Code of Practice (and the new incoming DLUHC statutory Code of Practice) which explicitly state that ‘simple keying errors’ of one digit should result in cancellation of the PCN.  Such circumstances should never result in PCN due to the requirement that BPA members are required to carry out human checks at the outset, to ensure that a PCN is not issued inappropriately.  The Claimant has wrongfully retained the Defendant’s data after they alerted them through appeal.  The Claimant has continued to process the Defendant’s data without reasonable cause and without any overriding legitimate interest – the Defendant has received 13 demands for money from various sources, these being Debt Recovery Plus, Zenith Collections, SCS Law, Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd and UK Parking Control Ltd.  The Claimant has failed to delete the case in line with BPA advice in 2019 regarding simple keying errors of one digit.

 

6. The Defendant also appealed to POPLA but the Claimant made false claims that the Defendant was in a resident’s parking space without a permit, when in fact they were clearly in a Pay and Display space, as evidenced by the adjacent Pay and Display machine they used to register with ParkMobile Access.  The Claimant supplied narrow angle photographs of the Defendant’s car which did not sufficiently evidence its location and signage.  The Claimant also supplied 42 irrelevant photographs across the whole site (including multiple other cars) which had no bearing on the Defendant’s PCN.  The Defendant was prevented from supplying sufficient evidence in this appeal due to the upload limits on the online POPLA system, POPLA also would not consider further evidence via email.  POPLA refused to consider any evidence relating to the ‘third party organisation’ ParkMobile Access, yet admitted that it was the single digit keying error that led to the PCN (i.e. the vehicle location was irrelevant to the case).

[The rest is as per the template]

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me.  Make sure you get an email auto-acknowledgement from the CCBC. 

Expect a discontinuance once you reach WS & evidence stage.  We've now seen 102 claim discontinuances in a few months from DCBLegal, almost all involving UKPC.

ChrisTred

Thank you.  Definite trend then with DCB Legal/UKPC.  Yes I will make sure I receive an auto-acknowledgement and will post update/outcomes on here to add to the evidence.

ChrisTred

Hi,

Just about to submit my defence but have received this strange email from DCB Legal in response to my notification to them that I was submitting a SAR to their client UKPC (see below)

It's particularly strange since UKPC have already provided me with info from my SAR.. any clue regarding what they mean by 'failure to respond to this email with the required information may result in the matter progressing further..' (funny, I would have thought it would be the opposite - i.e. they wouldn't progress the SAR without this info!  Sounds their usual threatening/intimidating tone though..

Any advice on whether I should respond or not? (they have my address and postcode already of course, so in theory nothing lost..  Thanks.

Dear XXX

 

We write in response to your email dated 7th February 2023.

 

For data protection please provide the following:

 

•           Your first line of address

•           Your postcode 

 

Please note, failure to respond to this email with the required information may result in the matter progressing further.

 

Kind Regards,  

 

Jemma Slater

 

DCB Legal Ltd  

 

Tel: 0203 838 7038 | DX 23457 Runcorn  

dcblegal.co.uk | Twitter | Linkedin | Facebook  

 

Coupon-mad

Ignore it.  You weren't meant to email them anyway as you are not at LBC stage.   Sending a SAR to the parking firm, yes, but no-one said to read the other advice that only relates to LBC stage (sending an email to the legals is LBC stage only).

ChrisTred

Ah thanks.. I misunderstood.  Will ignore as you advise.

ChrisTred

Hi again.

So I've received the 'we intend to proceed...you have 7 days to settle..blah, blah' letter (which I am ignoring as advised)... plus DCB Legal's DQ (they used the old form).  My MCOL still just says 'Your defence was received on 17/02/2023' so they haven't sent me my DQ yet.

Just for other's reference, prior to this they wrote trying to make me look stupid by telling me off for directly sending them my defence..

'We respectfully suggest that you revisit the directions on the Response Pack that you received from the Court.  You will note that it was not correct to send the documentation to DCB Legal directly.  Please note, therefore that the documentation has been securely disposed of.  Please be advised if a response from you is not on the Court file within the relevant timeframe provided in the Response Pack, Judgement will be requested against you by default.  If you do not understand the contents of this letter, we recommend you seek independent legal advice.'

Honestly they try every psychological trick in the book!

Although I haven't received my DQ, I am trying too get ahead and have downloaded the form. I just have a few queries..

1. Is Northampton court a 'good' court? (it's my local one, so probably no option anyway, but wondered if it's 'worse' because all the claims start there?)
Qrbrrbl suggested response to the 'new' D1 'Suitability for determination without a hearing' but it doesn't fit in the box - is there a newer/shorter version somewhere I can use?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79267087/#Comment_79267087

Many thanks.

Coupon-mad

No just shorten it to say the same message but written more concisely.

Northampton court should be fine but you won't reach a hearing anyway because they will discontinue at WS stage when you poker-face them with a decent WS bundle.

KeithP

ChrisTred said:

Although I haven't received my DQ, I am trying too get ahead and have downloaded the form. I just have a few queries..

1. Is Northampton court a 'good' court? (it's my local one, so probably no option anyway, but wondered if it's 'worse' because all the claims start there?)

Please be aware that Northampton County Court is a different place to the County Court Business Centre which also happens to be in Northampton.
No idea whether Northampton County Court is good or bad but you still need to state where you would like the case transferred to.

ChrisTred

Thanks both.

Ah.. yes I hadn't realised they were different.  Yes will just shorten it then.

Looking forward to poker-facing them (arrogant manipulators that they are..)