DCB Legal on behalf of Highview Parking - Advice on Defence for Claim

KeithP

The first words of para 4 have already been stated in your para 2, so reduce it to...
4. The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not PoFA compliant and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), Schedule 4.

Your para 5 is a repeat of para 4 - delete it. Any explanation of para 4 is better placed in your Witness Statement.

Your paras 8 and 9 add nothing useful.

Redman2186

@KeithP

Swapped 2 & 3 - Feels like it flows better. Updated 4/5/6 per your input. Will remove 8 & 9 - 8 feels superfluous, 9 feels better suited to Witness Statement.

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 £286.71 (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 5 years ago on 2nd October 2016 at Waterfields Retail Park, Watford.

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 insured driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was or was not driving on a random Sunday nearly 5 years ago.

4). The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not PoFA compliant and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('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 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 £211.71. The Defendant has excluded the £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

Coupon-mad

You did keep in #6 and #7 about PATAS and POPLA's finest, Henry Greenslade, yes?

Redman2186

Coupon-mad said:

You did keep in #6 and #7 about PATAS and POPLA's finest, Henry Greenslade, yes?

Yes kept point about Henry
Whole entry reads follows:

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 £286.71 (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 5 years ago on 2nd October 2016 at Waterfields Retail Park, Watford.

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 insured driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was or was not driving on a random Sunday nearly 5 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 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 £211.71. 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 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).

Redman2186

Rather interesting response to SAR - I will blackout and provide an image later.
Key points: 
1. From what they have sent me, only the "Charge Notice" despite asking for all communication (They never sent me any of the collection letters, assume i'd need to ask DRP and DCB if I wanted those).  Group Nexus have confirmed that my Name/Address along with details of the outstanding charge were passed to Debt Recoverry Plus Ltd and Direct Collect Bailiffs Ltd who are their collection agents on the 02/12/2016 & 17/06/2020 respectively.

2. Vehicle was recorded from 01/10/2016 11:55 to 02/10/2016 15:48 - The recorded duration of the stay was 03:52 (hh:mm) -- 
By my calculations that is actually a stay all day and all night for a total of 27:48 --- Hmmm, something does not add up.  We live 15mins away and could quite possibly have been a family trip to the retail park on two consecutive days over the weekend - ANPR failure to throw in the mix? Can definitively say that we never slept in the car overnight
 
3.The Date of Notice was 10/10/2016, it went to an old address, hence why we have no recollection of the original - at some point my address has obviously been updated as they now have my current address for the Claim Form.

What the Charge Notice says...in advance of the picture later:
Having checked the vehicle details with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), we are writing to you because either you were the registered keeper at the time of parking, or the registered keeper has named you as the driver at the date and time of the event.
In accordance with the Terms & Conditions clearly and prominently displayed and agreed to when your vehicle parked on our Client's property, the payment of £85.00 is required within 28 days from the date of this Notice. We will accept the reduced sum of £50.00 if payment is received within 14 days i.e. before 24/10/2016. If payment is not received within 28 days, an initial debt recovery charge of £40.00 will be incurred.
The driver of this vehicle is required to pay this parking charge within the time frame stipulated above. As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time , you should provide us with the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to the driver. If the vehicle has been hired, please provide a signed statement confirming the hirer's name and address and include a copy of both the hire agreement and their statement of liability.

Thoughts on my Defence having read the above -
PoFA all still valid etc.?
Should I include something about ANPR failure - given 27+ hour stay? If yes, does anyone have some good wording I could make use of? 

D_P_Dance

If you think that the solicitor is acting unprofessionally complain here,

https://www.sra.org.uk/

Redx

Well spotted , Sounds like double dipping , 2 short visits , as you say

Read the parking prankster website on double dipping issues , was very common with HIGHVIEW , Smart parking and a few others

A suitable paragraph that includes 2 short visits on different days , so not one long single visit after all , this can be expanded on in the WS

Double dipping has come up on here hundreds of times , been included in popla appeals etc too , find some and read them , looking for concise instances for the defence and long explanatiobs for the WS. But stay as keeper in the defence , mentioning that the driver probably visited on 2 separate days for short visits , etc , so

POFA still valid ? , Yes

Anpr issues ? , Yes

Double dipping ? , Yes

D_P_Dance

Lots about double dipping here

https://www.sra.org.uk/

KeithP

D_P_Dance said:

Lots about double dipping here

https://www.sra.org.uk/

No there isn't.

D_P_Dance

Sorry
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5550336/double-dip-parking-list-of-cases