One Parking Solutions Vantage Point Brighton - Advice, please!

Coupon-mad

But be ready for the court claim if you are saying you have had a LBC already.

confused_larchie

No, @Coupon-mad, as @Gr1pr commented, I think the LBC is still to come.

As for ''be ready for the court claim'', what is it that I should do to prepare? Please tell me, @Coupon-mad.

Despite all of your assurances, every time one of their letters arrive in the post, I'm still uncertain of how it is not my issue because I did take longer than the first 10 minutes that they stated in their 'policies' and as unjust as they are, I still panic and dread sets in... Then, however, I read more of other people's posts and learn of how supportive you all are, and I feel better. THANK YOU.

Coupon-mad

I've beaten OPS in court every time I've appeared and have no concerns for you whatsoever. In fact Judges definitely prefer to hear from the Defendant, not me.

Please read the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread. That's the court info resource.

confused_larchie

Moorside Legal's Letter of Claim finally arrived and it looks the same as the one that 
Gr1pr commented on Posts: 4,383 6 November 2024 at 12:22PM
and I'll ... 'Come back to this thread when any claim pack arrives...'

Many thanks to you all for your support.

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to you all. 

Coupon-mad

So this is just a LoC, not a Claim Form yet?

confused_larchie

@Coupon-mad
Sorry for this late reply... I've been in hospital.
The letter heading was "Letter of Claim", so I guess the Claim Form is still to come.

confused_larchie

Dear All,

Happy February 2026!

It's now more than two years since my first encounter with OPS (11/11/2023) and one year since the last time I've heard from them. Am I being too hopeful, or naive, to think that they've forgotten about my case?

I completely forgot about OPS until I read about someone else complaining about their own parking issue.

Again, thank you all for your support.

Gr1pr

They have 6 years to sue you, from the incident date, unlikely to have forgotten

Coupon-mad

OPS will do a batch of claims via a solicitor at some point, I'm sure.

Maybe they are waiting until Scott Wilson has put a legal team together at ZZPS to try out their new SRA status. OPS love using ZZPS.

I predict that they could well be the first customers of this brand spanking new 'dream team':

• Scott Wilson, erstwhile Head of Legal at disgraced Wonga who were investigated by the FCA, OFT and MET Police before they folded:

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/wonga-pay-redress-unfair-debt-collection-practices

and

• Gary Osner, who infamously ran Roxburghe UK, whose company DRA licence was revoked by the OFT, due to what the FCA called 'the underlying facts' from the OFT consumer drive investigation (where Roxburghe was found 'unfit' but that finding was quashed … neither proven nor unproven … and they folded) after which Osner dusted himself off and phoenixed into ZZPS, which of course escapes all FCA scrutiny!

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/fca-reaches-agreement-hfo-services-limited-roxburghe-uk-limited-and-hfo-capital

They are now at the helm of ZZPS' new 'legal' arm. We should be afraid. Not because they are scary or hard to beat (they won't be!), but because of the extreme - catastrophic - damage to consumer pockets that they will inflict over the next 2/3 years if the MHCLG lets the £170 'double recovery' scam continue.

It is a recipe for disaster, with the MHCLG having been duped last year into thinking that there was a real and different head of cost they called a 'DRF' that could be added on top of a PCN (which the Beavis case tells us stands up on the SAME HEADS OF COST).

ZZPS will rip apart the motoring public the minute the Government (if they do) gives them the green light to carry on 'BAU' with £170 charges enabled by statute. Jeez. We should all just give up.

Only in the UK could a Government Minister 'bend the knee' to the rogue industry whose conduct the Knight Act came in to curb, and sign off the appalling 'Options' Assessment (which had no option to ban the double recovery) and be so blind to what MPs' called an 'outrageous scam'.

Especially given the case law & statute law:

• the Beavis case (£85 was OK & it more than covered the minor letter chain costs, plus generated extreme profits);
• the POFA which says that the 'maximum sum' is the PCN sum on the signs & states a 'no double recovery' rule too;

And given the massive clue from the last Government in 2022 that adding fake fees on top of a PCN was "extorting money".

Why did the Tories say that, then?

Strong word. Extortion.

MHCLG…please:

1. why were you so easily persuaded behind the scenes by this lying industry, who seem to have convinced you that the figures in the 2021 Impact Assessment were 'wrong' … how? … because you let the sector re-write it then believed them because it added up?!
2. Even POPLA didn't fall for that when PPCs used to try - pre 2015 - to show a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' by including back office costs, camera/kit costs & wages so that the costs added up to the PCN! Come on! Breach of contract charges cannot include back office costs. Only reasonably foreseeable costs arising from the breach can be counted, which the Supreme Court determined was the minor cost of the letter chain (but with an enhancement to £85 which had a deterrent value and was 'similar' to LA penalties).
3. why did you tell the ICO in a FOI request submission - and appear to have told the parking sector - that the proportionate PCN levels decided in the 2022 Code (and the fee ban) were "off the table"?
4. put right your error before you create disaster and enable the floodgates (opened by the IPC's 'one of our own' Gladstones, shoved wider by DCB Legal plus BPA President's Moorside Legal) to be blown off their hinges by the above nightmare duo.

ZZPS & co must be rubbing their hands in glee, just waiting for this Government to kick the can down the road (as the awful Options Assessment pretty much promised) & allow the double recovery that the statute (POFA) & case law (Beavis and Somerfield) actually bans when you read HHJ Moloney's judgment that the Supreme Court upheld, realise that claiming those same heads of cost again is illegal AND take account of the Schedule4 explanatory notes which expressly disallow double recovery.

confused_larchie

Ah well, I've just been told by my mechanic today that same car will have to be scrapped…

Just thought maybe the headache is over, but I guess I'll have to wait another 4 years to see how it ends.

Will keep you posted.