Claim form issued 2015

Bazzoh

Ok, heavily copied from the excellent thread mentioned above

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2). It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant was not the only insured driver of the vehicle photographed and the claimant has not proved who was driving.

3). The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited for a Total amount of £302.01 (inclusive of £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). Through research the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle ******* over 5 years ago on 3 July 2015 at The Rock Retail Park, Birkenhead.

4). The Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question notes that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), Schedule 4.

5). In the Particulars of Claim ('POC') it is stated that the Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper but the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that Defendant was also the driver. The Defendant cannot be held liable for the charges as the keeper of the vehicle. 

6). Following on from [4] & [5], where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in PoFA, Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their POC which were signed under a statement of truth by the Claimant's legal representative who should know (as the Claimant undoubtedly does) that it is untrue to state that the Defendant is 'liable as keeper'.  This can never be the case with a Highview Parking Limited claim because this parking firm, same as any Group Nexus company, have never used the POFA 2012 wording, of their own volition.  Not only does the POC include this misleading untruth, but the Claimant has also added an unidentified sum in false 'damages' to enhance the claims.  So sparse is their statement of case, that the Claimant has failed to even state any facts about the alleged breach or the amount of the parking charge that was on the signage, because it cannot have been over £100. Which then leads to the question, how does the Claimant arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £227.01. Defendant has excluded the £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

7). PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015).

Coupon-mad

Very good.

Maybe set out the full names of PATAS and POPLA in full, first, as the Judge may not know what the acronyms mean.  Google tells you!

Redx

Bazzoh said:

@Redx the image at the foot of page 3 is all that has been sent in response to the SAR

i will redo the defence now

many thanks 

Then reply back to the DPA at Nexus and mention that copies of the notices sent on the 10th and 27th July 2015 are missing documents from their reply and you asked for copies of all data , so all documents , all pictures etc , give them 7 days notice to complete the task and reply with attachments of those missing documents that are mentioned in the one they sent , no excuses

In other words , they have failed the SAR and the only true invoice is the first one , issued on 10th July , as stated in the paperwork they sent you , yet is not present

But double check their reply first , looking for those missing documents , especially that very first one

Then proof read the above defence paragraphs checking all the details match , like the totals etc , that the figures match your claim , the details are about your claim , not the one you copied from

Redman2186

Coupon-mad said:

Very good.

Maybe set out the full names of PATAS and POPLA in full, first, as the Judge may not know what the acronyms mean.  Google tells you!

I need to do this still - Will get a full update on my thread tomorrow otherwise everyone will copy and paste this point.

Bazzoh

@Redman2186 thank you for taking the time to write these paragraphs!

KeithP

Bazzoh said:

@Redman2186 thank you for taking the time to write these paragraphs!

And here was my post on his thread...
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78309465/#Comment_78309465

Bazzoh

Brilliant - thank you @KeithP

Egbert_Nobacon

Bazzoh said:

Coupon-mad said:

OMG you could have easily avoided that claim by responding to the LBC with some questions, getting a SAR, etc., and timing it out.  Too late now.

I mean, you'll still .likely win but this was just weeks away from the 6 years being up and all you had to to was delay it a bit.  Now you have to go through all the rigmarole of defending a court claim.

Just my luck to be honest! This was the first correspondence i seem to have received about it!
The AOS is done, just following the steps in the Newbies thread (SAR etc) and trying to convince someone they need to go to Birkenhead for me (not an easy task!) in order to take a picture!

So was a LBC sent or straight to claim ?
Check your SAR reply - it should be included.

Wouldn’t be surprised if there is some missing paperwork after all this time.

Bazzoh

@Egbert_Nobacon the 3 documents sent with the SAR (admittedly I thought it was one document repeated) are..

Bazzoh

Second file