Claim Form Received / Highview Parking / DCB Legal

deezee3k

@Coupon-mad

Wigan Court. Not sure of the Judge's name as we were told one name and it changed when we got in there.

Judge didn't say if he always disallowed false costs. 

Judge even spoke about 'balance of probabilities' in his opening remarks.

Claimant also mentioned I had to prove I wasn't the driver in their summary.
I thought the bank transaction evidence would have tipped things in my favour

Judge did however question my summary, I said that I was 'likely not the driver' 

He said I didn't seem certain. 

I replied I was trying to be nice but to clarify, I said that I wasn't the driver. 

I remained respectful with what I said and with my tone. 

Jenni_D

Claimant also mentioned I had to prove I wasn't the driver in their summary.

Erm - surely it would for them to prove that you were? 🙄 Unfortunately it seems the judge fell for it.

deezee3k

Jenni_D said:

Claimant also mentioned I had to prove I wasn't the driver in their summary.

I was happy the Claimant said the above, as I had the evidence to prove I wasn't the driver. 

deezee3k

A point I made that I think was dismissed too easily:

An exhibit I submitted was a photograph of signage that the Claimant sent to me by email. The sign said 'Guide to 2 hours free parking'

The email from the Claimant included the original PCN and Terms, one of which was that signage.

The PCN and Claim was based on '1 hour and 30 minutes free parking'.

The exhibit was overlooked as both the Judge and solicitor agreed they weren't sure where it came from.

I explained that the Claimant sent the email and that the exhibit had 2 parts - 1, a screen shot of the email and 2, the Guide to 2 hours free parking signage.

I thought that was important as though there was still an overstay, the 2 hour terms made it only by 11 minutes. 

The Claimant's solicitor in their summary said 10-15 minutes overstay would have been reasonable. That was when he was working off a 41 minutes overstay going off 1 hour and 30 minutes terms. 

Jenni_D

Another failing by the judge ... Contra Proforentem should have thus applied, whereby any dubiety in the terms should favour the party who did not draft the terms.  

Coupon-mad

We've seen bad decisions from Wigan more than once.  I can't understand how he ignored that exhibit of yours and decided you were the driver.

leoni0211

Hi everyone I followed your advise and sent a very robust email as per dear R Taylor and within a day they have emailed this reply:

Good Morning

 

Our position remains the same as our previous email.

 

The new Code of Practice is yet to be enforced so does not apply to this debt.

 

The letters were issued to you as you breached the Terms and Conditions of the parking agreement. The debt is comprised of the Parking Charge and a debt recovery charge. The debt recovery fee is a contractual charge which was agreed to when parking on the Land.

 

Our Client has taken all reasonable steps to recover the debt. Pursuing a legally owed debt through the Small Claims Track is the correct process. Should you wish to not make payment within the next 23 days, the matter may be escalated to the County Court. Payment details have already been provided.

 

 

Kind Regards,  

What should I do next? Once it goes to county court do I have to pay the court fees as well if I decide not to fight it. This has been going on for 5 and a half years now. I kind of feel like making a payment of £155 so it can ho away but at the same time I know they are scammers so want to fight. If I do what should my defence be?

Coupon-mad

Did you mean to post that on your own thread, here?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6339051/high-view-parking-dcb-legal-ltd-email-with-evidence-attached-and-told-to-pay/p1

Add it there so we can all laugh at their desperation.  They hate the fact their gravy train has stopped.

Reply and say:



Dear Sirs, 

Your client has done nothing useful for consumers, has not incurred additional 'costs' and the added 'fee' for what is a purely automated letter chain is, I suspect, not part of any prominent contractual term on the sign.

Send me a copy of the sign and you may need to put a ring round the small print, I suspect, if trying to point out some hidden term.  Not a stock sign.  I want to see the sign in situ that day, please. A copy of the contract (sign) is reasonable to request under the PAP for debt claims and you must hold the case whilst I seek debt advice about this non-existent debt.

Whilst the new Code and Act is not retrospective, it was enacted due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes of Practice.  The Minister is indisputably talking about existing (not future) cases when declaring that 'recovery' fees were 'designed to extort money'.  A clear steer for the Courts.  Your client has no chance of getting that element.

yours faithfully,

your name

leoni0211

Yes I did  apologies.  Thank you you for this I will reply with this and let you know what happens.