County court claim form - Highview

ld123

Hello

I am here again on behalf of somebody else after success with a previous court claim letter (separate incident, same person, different car). Hopefully summarised the details - 

Letter received from DCB legal in December 2020 for £165 charge re: 'breach of contract on private land, PCN was issued, liable as keeper or driver' in 2015. The PCN schedule states 'vehicle remained on private property in breach of the prominently displayed terms & conditions'. Letter states 8% annual interest will be applied should a claim be necessary.

This letter was ignored.

As this is so long ago - person has no idea what the breach was (presume an overstay over the 'free' allotted time as this is one of those 2hr max carparks) though no entry/exit timestamps are noted on the letter. There's also no cctv images provided. Not sure what the signage looked like in 2015 but from memory there is certainly signs now showing the max time allowed. You can get extensions I believe by 'signing in' at one of the retailers/leisure facilities or scanning in a receipt to show you were shopping at the retailers. No recollection of receiving any letters about this previously, though did sell car in 2016 & moved house in 2018. Person was the registered keeper at the time but obviously is no longer. 


County court business centre claim form received today (Highview Parking), issue date 27/04/21. Claim is now for £236 plus £25 court fee & £50 legal representative costs. The court claim form states 'driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not'.

SO my understanding is not to do the AOS until day 5 from 27th April (3rd May)
SAR email to Highview ASAP (or is this too late as letter was ignored and now at claim form stage?)





Initial thoughts on defence - 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3. The Defendant does not remember whether they were the driver on those specified dates and times, as the first time they heard about these parking charges were in December 2020 via post, which means that the incident occurred over 5 years ago.
Therefore, it is extremely unlikely for the Defendant to remember whether they were driving and what happened on those specified dates.
The Defendant feels extremely harassed by the bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters, as well as that, the Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.


(As they only received the 1 letter can this be classed as bombardment?)
Is there any other defence they can add here?

TIA

KeithP

ld123 said:

County court business centre claim form received today (Highview Parking), issue date 27/04/21. 

SO my understanding is not to do the AOS until day 5 from 27th April (3rd May)

With a Claim Issue Date of 27th April, you have until Monday 17th May to file an Acknowledgment of Service. If possible, do not file an AoS before 1st May, but otherwise, there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 1st June 2021 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Le_Kirk

Start by submitting a SAR to the parking company asking for all data the PPC hold on them, this should shake out the original paperwork (which should not be ignored this time or thrown away!).  This won't come in time for the defence but will be useful at witness statement (WS) time.  If they are relying on POFA are they saying they were not the driver on the date of the event?  Have they thought what they will say if the judge asks them outright at the hearing "were you driving?"

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but was not the driver and liability is denied.
3. The Defendant does not remember whether or not they were the driver on an unremarkable date 5 years ago those specified dates and times, as the first time they heard about these parking charges were was in December 2020 via post which means that the incident occurred over 5 years ago.
Therefore, it is extremely unlikely for the Defendant to remember whether they were driving and what happened on those specified dates.
The Defendant feels extremely harassed by the bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters, as well as that, the The Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, namely ..........

Make changes as above.  Receiving a bombardment of letters (or even one) is not a defence point.  You should specify why they have failed POFA.  You might want to set the scene for the judge about the car park (what type it was, free, PDT or permit) in the first part of paragraph 3.  Opening the door by making these points in the defence leaves room to barge through it with full details in the WS.

Coupon-mad

I wrote some words last week about a possible contempt of court by the person who signed off the POC because Highview know they have chosen never to use the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 provisions and thus, CANNOT hold keepers liable so the POC are untrue.

Read other HIghview threads to find it as we really are getting bombarded and bored by them this month, and it's all been said!

ld123

Hello

Thank you very much for the help so far. I have so far - 

• Filed AOS 2nd May, MCOL states this was received 4th May
• SAR emailed to Group Nexus on 30th April, no response as yet (even to request further ID) - should I chase? Believe they have 30 days to respond?
• Started to compile the below defence after reading numerous other highview threads. I am unsure if I should include all the info on para 3 (at all, if not relevant ) or if it should be separately numbered paras rather than 3a) 3b) etc. I would much appreciate feedback on this.
• I have also stumbled across a tweet from 2017 from Urban Exchange (the retail park) with an image of the parking signs in 2017 that state the confusing 1hr max stay, 2hrs if you're a customer. I believe it is now 2 and a half hours having visited around a month ago, unsure what the terms were in 2015. Not sure if relevant at this stage, but maybe for evidence; https://twitter.com/urban_exchange/status/936492722168434688 

Initial section of draft defence as follows;

2). It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The identity of the driver on this date is unknown to the Defendant. The Defendant was not the only user of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was or was not driving on an unremarkable date and unspecified time nearly 5 years ago. 

3)

3A. 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 £311.06 (inclusive of £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs) from an initial claim request of £165. The Defendant understands that this relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle abc1234 over 5 years ago on DATE, 2015 at Urban Exchange, M4, Manchester. The defendant has not owned the aforementioned vehicle since 2016 and has since moved to a new address.

3B. The defendant cannot recall the alleged contravention or identify the possible driver due to the time elapsed. The defendant is aware of the carpark in question, as a previously frequent visitor to the retail park, including being a member of the PureGym as well as a regular shopper at both the Aldi and Marks & Spencer’s. 

3C. The claimant has not stipulated what the breach of contract was, nor provided any ANPR images or timings during which the aforementioned contravention is alleged to have taken place; merely that a breach of contract occurred. The defendant has tried hard to determine what the contravention could have been though lack of evidence provided thus far from the claimant has failed to identify either the driver or the circumstances. The defendant reserves the right to expand on facts should the claimant supply further usable evidence.

3D. The defendant acknowledges there was signs outlining a maximum stay on this carpark which could be extended by validating a receipt from one of the retail park stores, or claiming their vehicle ANPR image on a tablet within the gym they were a member of. The defendant remembers regularly using the tablets in the gym to identify their vehicle, to allow an extended stay to attend classes in the gym & do their food shopping at Aldi. 

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. The Claimant did not properly serve a compliant notice to keeper in strict accordance with Paragraph 9, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of the PoFA, which states that notice to keeper must be delivered within the relevant period. Where the relevant period is defined as the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

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 £236.06. The Defendant has excluded the £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

7). The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (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).

8). The Defendant does not recall receiving the original PCN. The Defendant upon receiving the Claim Form has subsequently requested a copy via Subject Access Request to Group Nexus (who through research the Defendant now understand own Highview Parking Limited).

9). The Defendant does recall receiving one "debt collection" letter in December 2020. The letter appeared to demand immediate action on the part of the Defendant and gave rise to the feeling that they must be part of some sort of scam. It felt like the Defendant was being harassed in to hastily handing over money in order to avoid further costs down the line, court visits and an impending CCJ that would impact on the Defendant livelihood. The Defendant ignored this threatening “Debt Collection” type letter believing it could be part of a scam.

 

 

beamerguy

In point 9 ..... I would not use use the word scam ... even though we know that DCBL is promoting the scam.  Most judges will know this is a scam and the purpose of a judge, who let's be fair is only a third party in this, is to place the scam into a category which as we see can mean the case is dismissed ... Judges will not use the word scam ... they should do ?

1: You need proof of the signage when the ticket was issued
2: You need an explanation of the term "damages"
3: You need confirmation from DCBL that they have legal authority to add an amount they are not entitled to claim
4: You need DCBL to answer why they are going against the Supreme court ruling which sets a precedence in a county court

What with the fabrications that a certain Yasmin Mia thinks it's all true, is she real, and was she there when the ticket was issued ..  a statement of truth suggests she was ?

If I placed a bet with a bookie that the DCBL rubbish would lose .... I would make money

And Group Nexus ??    A mega question mark ..... they want a drivers licence or passport to prove ID ...... total rubbish, we are waiting to see what the ICO say about this.

DCBL are hoping to mug a judge .... very sad bunch

Coupon-mad

Looks good but I would remove 3D because it makes it sound like the D was the driver, when the truth is you cannot be sure.

Please can we use your thread as a group thread example, to show people a HIghview defence that covers the falsehood in the POC and the POFA stuff?  There are so many people here I want to point people to one thread to save our sanity, can we point people here please as you've done this before and are more confident than most?

Beware of Group Nexus sending you a stupid 'SAR Form' of their own imagination that asks who was driving.  Wrong on so many levels, for a SAR.  Effectively, one could form the opinion that they are tricking people into saying who was driving which is the one thing they need to be able to sue people without worrying about the POFA.  And when questioned they reply ''we find it helps people'' (yeah, right...it helps you sue the victim).

This looks useful for witness statement stage:

• I have also stumbled across a tweet from 2017 from Urban Exchange (the retail park) with an image of the parking signs in 2017 that state the confusing 1hr max stay, 2hrs if you're a customer. I believe it is now 2 and a half hours having visited around a month ago, unsure what the terms were in 2015. Not sure if relevant at this stage, but maybe for evidence; https://twitter.com/urban_exchange/status/936492722168434688 

Fruitcake

Have a look on Google Streetview (GSV) to see if there are historical photos from around or either side of the alleged event.

Redman2186

beamerguy said:

In point 9 ..... I would not use use the word scam ... even though we know that DCBL is promoting the scam.  Most judges will know this is a scam and the purpose of a judge, who let's be fair is only a third party in this, is to place the scam into a category which as we see can mean the case is dismissed ... Judges will not use the word scam ... they should do ?

I originally used the word Scam as that we the feeling that the letters evoked - It's not to say that Highview or DCB are a scam. All of the guidance in the news/local press/police is that if you are being pressed for money in compressed timeline with negative impact if you do not send then you are advised to be wary as it could be a scam - thoughts?

D_P_Dance

.. I would not use use the word scam 

I would

ld123

Coupon-mad said:

Looks good but I would remove 3D because it makes it sound like the D was the driver, when the truth is you cannot be sure.

Please can we use your thread as a group thread example, to show people a HIghview defence that covers the falsehood in the POC and the POFA stuff?  There are so many people here I want to point people to one thread to save our sanity, can we point people here please as you've done this before and are more confident than most?

Beware of Group Nexus sending you a stupid 'SAR Form' of their own imagination that asks who was driving.  Wrong on so many levels, for a SAR.  Effectively, one could form the opinion that they are tricking people into saying who was driving which is the one thing they need to be able to sue people without worrying about the POFA.  And when questioned they reply ''we find it helps people'' (yeah, right...it helps you sue the victim).

This looks useful for witness statement stage:

• I have also stumbled across a tweet from 2017 from Urban Exchange (the retail park) with an image of the parking signs in 2017 that state the confusing 1hr max stay, 2hrs if you're a customer. I believe it is now 2 and a half hours having visited around a month ago, unsure what the terms were in 2015. Not sure if relevant at this stage, but maybe for evidence; https://twitter.com/urban_exchange/status/936492722168434688 

Thanks very much all for your responses! Yes please feel free to use this thread as a basis for others - more than happy to help!