IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Claim Form Received / Highview Parking / DCB Legal

Options
1246710

Comments

  • deezee3k
    deezee3k Posts: 44 Forumite
    Second Anniversary 10 Posts Name Dropper
    Thanks @Fruitcake. I've amended as per your advice and will post the paragraphs after hopefully getting some advice on whether or not the following is strong enough to include as Point 5;

    "The Defendant does not recall receiving the initial charge notice and subsequent reminders in July and August 2018, respectively. For this reason, in January 2021 the Defendant requested they be sent and received them in February 2021. Further to this, the Defendant submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) in May 2021. Upon review of the documents contained in the SAR, an email from the Landowner to the Claimant states the charge ‘seems a bit harsh if he genuinely didn’t get it, which I think he is’."


    The email in full states;

    "Hi

    This seems a bit harsh if he genuinely didn’t get it, which I think he is as trying to pay.

    Would a fair position be to pay the fine plus any of the associated legal costs?

    Many thanks"


    At no point did I offer to pay.


    As always everyone, thanks for your time and consideration.

  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 151,894 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 29 May 2021 at 7:46PM
    The Defendant does not recall receiving the initial charge notice and subsequent reminders in July and August 2018, respectively. For this reason, in January 2021 the Defendant requested they be sent and received them in February 2021. Further to this, the Defendant submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) in May 2021. Upon review of the documents contained in the SAR, an email from the Landowner to the Claimant states the charge '‘seems a bit harsh if he genuinely didn’t get it, which I think he is."  The landowner not supporting the charge means this case is fully distinguished from the Supreme court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in that there is no commercial justification or legitimate interest in pursuing it, as well as no liability in law (due to the Claimant's choice not to utilise the provisions in the POFA that ParkingEye almost always do).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • deezee3k
    deezee3k Posts: 44 Forumite
    Second Anniversary 10 Posts Name Dropper
    The landowner not supporting the charge means this case is fully distinguished from the Supreme court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in that there is no commercial justification or legitimate interest in pursuing it, as well as no liability in law (due to the Claimant's choice not to utilise the provisions in the POFA that ParkingEye almost always do).
    Wow, thanks @Coupon-mad, both for the speed of reply and the content. 
  • Le_Kirk
    Le_Kirk Posts: 24,566 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 30 May 2021 at 10:42AM
    deezee3k said:

    This seems a bit harsh if he genuinely didn’t get it, which I think he is as trying to pay.

    Not sure I understand that bit - if so, would a judge?  What do you think it is trying to say?  You obviously cannot change the wording in the e-mail but can explain your interpretation of it.
  • deezee3k
    deezee3k Posts: 44 Forumite
    Second Anniversary 10 Posts Name Dropper
    Le_Kirk said:
    deezee3k said:

    This seems a bit harsh if he genuinely didn’t get it, which I think he is as trying to pay.

    Not sure I understand that bit - if so, would a judge?  What do you think it is trying to say?  You obviously cannot change the wording in the e-mail but can explain your interpretation of it.
    Hi @Le_Kirk. Thanks for the comment - it's had me re-thinking the meaning.

    I explained to the landowner that I didn't receive the original PCN and reminder letters because when I bought the car, the car dealership said they would update the V5C but didn't. I asked the landowner to cancel the PCN who said they needed to speak with Highview. Highview replied that they would accept the full charge of the PCN which was £95. At this time, DCB Legal were still demanding £165.

    My interpretation of 'seems a bit harsh if he genuinely didn't get it' is that the landowner emailed Highview and gave their opinion that any additional sums of money, other than the original PCN charge is harsh. This case was at the Letter Of Claim stage.
    My interpretation of 'which I think he is' suggests the landowner thinks I am genuine in saying I didn't receive the original PCN and reminder letters.

    My original interpretation was that the landowner was not in support of the PCN, whereas now, I think the above statement suggests the landowner is not in support of the additional charges other than the full charge of the PCN (not the 14 'discounted' rate).

    My issue with not receiving the original PCN was that I wasn't able to appeal.
    I also told DCB Legal that I would be willing to discuss this through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) but nothing was ever offered. Do I need to mention no offer of ADR, as well as DCB Legal demanding more money than Highview had offered me to pay?
  • Le_Kirk
    Le_Kirk Posts: 24,566 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    In my opinion you only need to use that e-mail to say that it backs up your defence that the landowner supports you in not wanting you to pay the whole amount and to have it cancelled.  You only need to open the door in the defence by stating that the landowner etc...... and then you produce the e-mail in your witness statement at evidence stage.  I don't believe that mentioning ADR in your defence will be a defence point.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 151,894 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Your most important point is the fact you ae not liable due to the PCN being non-POFA (Highview's choice, their bad).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • deezee3k
    deezee3k Posts: 44 Forumite
    Second Anniversary 10 Posts Name Dropper
    Happy Bank Holiday!

    Thanks for the comments. Noted that the important point will be that I, as the keeper am not liable due to the PCN being non-POFA.

    The bold text below is where I have changed the wording and I'm wondering if it makes sense? I.e. the landowner has not asked for the charge to be cancelled, but doesn't appear to be in support of the additional charges.

    So, does this still distinguish it from Beavis and should it be kept in as a defence point?

    "The Defendant does not recall receiving the initial charge notice and subsequent reminders in July and August 2018, respectively. For this reason, in January 2021 the Defendant requested they be sent and received them in February 2021. Further to this, the Defendant submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) in May 2021. Upon review of emails contained in the SAR, the Landowner is not in support of the additional charges. The landowner not supporting the additional charges means this case is fully distinguished from the Supreme court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in that there is no commercial justification or legitimate interest in pursuing it, as well as no liability in law (due to the Claimant's choice not to utilise the provisions in the POFA that ParkingEye almost always do)."
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 151,894 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Yep that's fine.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • deezee3k
    deezee3k Posts: 44 Forumite
    Second Anniversary 10 Posts Name Dropper
    Hi everyone. I think I'm ready to submit my defence.
    Thank you all so far for your help. I have took all comments on board and this is the version I will submit, unless anyone can suggest any improvements?

    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    Claim No.: XXXXXXXX

    Between

    Highview Parking Limited

    (Claimant) 

    - and -  

    XXXXXXXXX

     (Defendant)

    ____________________

    DEFENCE

    ____________________

    1.             The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.


    The facts as known to the Defendant:

    2.             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 £277.21 (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 xxxx-yyy nearly 3 years ago on 4th July 2018 at Urban Exchange, M4.


    3.             It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The identity of the driver at the material time is unknown to the Defendant. The Defendant was not the only person who had access to the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was or was not driving on an unremarkable Wednesday nearly 3 years ago.


    4.             The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the PoFA, Schedule 4.


    5.             Following on from [4] where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in the PoFA, Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their Particulars of Claim (‘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 £202.21. The Defendant has excluded the £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point.


    6.             The Defendant does not recall receiving the initial charge notice and subsequent reminders in July and August 2018, respectively. For this reason, in January 2021 the Defendant requested they be sent and received them in February 2021. Further to this, the Defendant submitted a Subject Access Request ('SAR') in May 2021. Upon review of emails contained in the SAR, the Landowner is not in support of the additional charges. The landowner not supporting the additional charges means this case is fully distinguished from the Supreme court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in that there is no commercial justification or legitimate interest in pursuing it, as well as no liability in law (due to the Claimant's choice not to utilise the provisions in the POFA that ParkingEye almost always do).

Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.