LBC advice for driver who 'possibly accepted guilt'

Castle

Paragraph 12:-
What exactly did the email of 7th May 2023 say as ZZPS are saying that they closed their file rather than cancelling the PCN, which is what your post on 12th September is suggesting happened.

kensiko

The original email read:

"Good Evening,

Thank you for your recent email.

Please be advised that we have been instructed to cancel this parking charge notice on behalf of our client.

The account has now been closed and there is no outstanding balance.

Thank you"

This is part of the SAR package received from ZZPS so they have confirmed this was sent.

DCBL then advised:
"Our client, Uk Parking Control, confirmed that ZZPS incorrectly informed you that the PCN was cancelled. Please note, ZZPS will write to you in due to course confirming their error."

ZZPS then sent this 'apology' letter:

Le_Kirk

Shame they used an out of date "Statement of Truth"  Maybe they need a solicitor to advise them!

Castle

Going back to paragraph 12 of their defence, they refer to receiving an instruction "to cancel our file and cease pursuit"-did they provide a copy of this instruction in your SAR response?

kensiko

Castle said:

Going back to paragraph 12 of their defence, they refer to receiving an instruction "to cancel our file and cease pursuit"-did they provide a copy of this instruction in your SAR response?

They did not, this is a snippet from the SAR for 06/02/23 when they said they closed on their end.
They then sent the 'cancellation' email on 07/05/23 after my friend emailed them.
 
I just realised they state the date this happened as 6th April not 6th February!! Paragraph 11 of the defence.

Another strange thing regarding dates is the SAR states the case was closed on 6th February, but also in the SAR is the final letter sent which was on 6th February threatening to be sent to QDR if payment was not received within 14 days.  How did they send this final letter and close the case on the same day?!?!?! 
I am now wondering wether the date in the defence (6th April) is correct and the SAR (6th February) is incorrect.  One of them has to be.

Also, paragraph 11 states QDR were involved but apart from a threat to pass this on to them in one of the letters received we heard nothing from them.

Somehow DCBL got involved which also added to the confusion.

Castle

kensiko said:

Castle said:

Going back to paragraph 12 of their defence, they refer to receiving an instruction "to cancel our file and cease pursuit"-did they provide a copy of this instruction in your SAR response?

They did not, this is a snippet from the SAR for 06/02/23 when they said they closed on their end.
They then sent the 'cancellation' email on 07/05/23 after my friend emailed them.
 
I just realised they state the date this happened as 6th April not 6th February!! Paragraph 11 of the defence.

There is reference to an "email received 11.4.23" on your SAR reply directly under "Closed at client request"-Have you seen a copy of that email?

Coupon-mad

The PCN history you quoted there will be right.

Although that email from DCB about ZZPS' error is a useful exhibit to use, your case has nothing to do with DCBL at all, and is all about damages for an alleged 'misleading action' by ZZPS, which is a breach of the CPUTRs.

They made the statement that: "Please be advised that we have been instructed to cancel this parking charge notice on behalf of our client" and that was not correct and has caused you immense distress as a direct result.  The word 'cancel' only has one meaning and you could have binned all the paperwork by relying on that.  Highly misleading and they've failed to defend why they used those words.

Their WS bundle later on will be interesting.

kensiko

Castle said:

There is reference to an "email received 11.4.23" on your SAR reply directly under "Closed at client request"-Have you seen a copy of that email?

The snippet of the SAR you are referencing from earlier in the thread?  This one?



I believe the text 'email received - 11.4.23' is regarding the email just underneath it which was sent from my friend to ZZPS.  My friend doesn't have copies of the email he sent or the one he received which is why I asked for the SAR.

It would appear my friend sent an email on 11.4.23 (shown above) and they replied on 07/05/23.

This is the entire snippet from the SAR of these dates.  It goes directly from 06/02/23 to 07/05/23 in the first column with just the '11.4.23' as being the email received by to them being shown.

That is how I have read the SAR.  It's not very well laid out, and judging from their defence stating 6th April I really don't know what to trust from their side.  But they do at least acknowledge sending an email with the lines "Please be advised that we have been instructed to cancel this parking charge notice on behalf of our client.
The account has now been closed and there is no outstanding balance."

kensiko

Coupon-mad said:

The word 'cancel' only has one meaning and you could have binned all the paperwork by relying on that.  Highly misleading and they've failed to defend why they used those words.

My thoughts exactly.  I was very surprised that they haven't really tried to defend the statement at all in the defence.

kensiko

I just have a few questions about the next stage as I have never reached this process before now.

It seems both parties now get the DQ, when filling it in they are asked about mediation.
I have read this about mediation:
"Mediation does not typically allow for disclosure of documents. It can be agreed between the parties that documents are disclosed prior to the mediation, but this is not common practice therefore it can block a mediation if additional information and/or documents are required."

Seems a bit strange if they are not looking at documents as the claimants case relies heavily on them.
As of yet, we have not submitted any evidence as we have only started the claim where you have very little space to briefly explain what the claim is.

I have also read it's best to try mediation as it looks as though you are at least compromising which is what we tried to do in the first instance with the completely ignored LBC.  The letter requested only the monies that had been paid out (<£300) rather than the claim for £500 plus costs associated.

Has anybody got any advice on the mediation process and can I be on the call with my friend to assist?  It seems I can but I don't see anywhere on the DQ form online to add this info, although I have yet to see the one that has arrived in the post, which will be the one filled in and returned.