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

Coupon-mad

Lovely - do a COUNTERCLAIM THEN.   They had no cause to have your data at all (see the threads by @Nosy and @ellaro9 that show counterclaims).

Costs you £25 to counterclaim for up to £300, or more if you want to spend a slightly higher court fee (Google it).

Yes add in wording but don't call it double dipping of course, that's just our jargon.

I'd add this to #3:

3). It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied and any breach of terms is also denied.   The identity of the driver(s) at the material time is unknown to the Defendant, who was not the only insured driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was or was not driving on two occasions, across two days nearly 5 years ago.  The Defendant has just received the Claimant's reply to a Subject Access Request ('SAR') and it discloses the following key issues for the first time, some/all of which show there can be no cause of action against this Defendant and the claim is wholly without merit:

 (i) The Notice to Keeper, also known as a Parking Charge Notice ('PCN') dated 10/10/2016 went to an old address, hence why the Defendant had no recollection of the original - because it was never properly served.  At some point the Defendant's address has been updated as the Claimants did at least use the correct address on their N1 Claim Form.

(ii)  The Defendant's vehicle was recorded from ''01/10/2016 11:55 to 02/10/2016 15:48''.  The recorded duration of the stay is stated to be 03:52 (hh:mm), in other words, the PCN states incorrectly that the stay was almost 4 hours.  In fact, this spans two days and by the Defendant's calculations that is actually a stay all day and all night for a total of 27:48.  The court is invited to come to the same conclusion as the Defendant: something does not add up.    The Defendant lives 15 minutes away and this is very likely to have been a family trip to the retail park on two consecutive days over the weekend (could also be two different drivers).  The Defendant can definitively say that the family never slept in the car overnight and would have had no reason to leave the car there for two days; this is preposterous and robustly denied..  The Claimant's SAR reply divulges a clear and well-known ANPR failure, and the burden was on the Claimant in 2016 to carry out manual checks of ANPR images which span two days, to identify one or both missing 'orphan' images of the vehicle leaving and arriving again the next day.  This is a requirement of the British Parking Association and it is well documented by them that ANPR systems have an inherent flaw of defaulting to the 'first in, last out' camera captures of a vehicle that visits a site twice in a 24 your period.   Looking at the PCN and images, it took the Defendant about 5 minutes flat to notice this clear and obvious error.  This Claimant should have noticed it prior to harvesting data from the DVLA in 2016 and should never have issued a PCN in the first place.  Moreover, they have had nearly 5 years to realise their error and certainly should have done so before unlawfully processing and sharing my data with third parties, preparing pre-action letters and then a claim.

(iii)       The PCN divulged for the first time in the SAR, shows that it was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), and it was therefore incapable of invoking the ‘keeper liability’ provisions set out in the PoFA, Schedule 4.  The Defendant's research has revealed that Highview is a parking firm which has chosen never to use 'keeper liability' wording (primarily as set out in para 9 of the POFA Sch 4) and whilst that is allowable by the DVLA, the registered keeper's data is only supplied for the limited purpose of a parking firm trying to ascertain who was driving.  The driver is the only liable party with a non-POFA PCN like this one and because - on the balance of probabilities - this was a case of two separate visits across two days, incorrectly grouped together, there is no charge due and the Claimant had no reasonable cause to obtain my data from the DVLA, at all.

4.       Following on from 3(iii)...

5.     The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS)...

As you will see from the 2 threads I've pointed you to read about counterclaims, that requires legal wording as shown on those threads and you pop it straight under the defence, and when you email it to the CCBC you then follow that with a phone call to pay the court fee to make the counterclaim 'live'.  Highview should NEVER have processed your data at all.

Redx

as above, get a counter claim in , it was a simple double dip case of 2 visists , one per day, simples

years ago we got these issues daily, especially with Highview which became a laughing stock on here (same as Apcoa) , due to their incompetence, read some of the prankster stories about highview, being bit by a radioactive spider and abducted by aliens

make them pay more than they claim from you , say £300 or more for DPA breaches, I think it costs £25

Redman2186

make them pay more than they claim from you , say £300 or more for DPA breaches, I think it costs £25

Would £250 per DPA Breach plus time spent researching (~20hours) be unreasonable?

D_P_Dance

You have a chance here to really damage this company, please use it. 

Redman2186

@Coupon-mad
Should the following:
20.       The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim. 
Go before the section on Costs?
19.       (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

            (b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance.  The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

Redman2186

Have read through counterclaims from @Nosy and @ellaro9 - thanks - Will get on with a draft
Is the following relevant? Or, should I just be sticking to data breach plus two counts of sharing data with third parties?
a) damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ breach of statutory duties under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and misleading actions within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as amended by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (“the Regulations”);  
Also, advice please:
1. At which point do I outline cost i.e. The countless hours I've spent researching, pulling defence together and responding?
2. Where do I obtain the hourly rate that I remember seeing on some forum posts (think it was £19ph)
3. Are there other costs to be included as part of the following? Do I need to outline CPR? Should CPR 46.5 be cited in counterclaim?

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance.  The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

Redx

1) the witness statement plus exhibits plus summary costs assessment stage , shortly before the hearing

2) I think it's on the gov website under the CPR ,s , try the MCOL website too

Redman2186

Group Nexus response to SAR:

Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence.
Please find attached copies of the requested documents.

We can confirm that your name and address details, along with details of the outstanding Charge, were passed to Debt Recovery Plus Ltd and Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd who are our Collection Agents on the 02/12/2016 and 17/06/2020 respectively for the purposes of recovering the outstanding amount on this Charge.

You are able to find more information relating to how we manage data on our Privacy Policy which is located on our website: www.groupnexus.co.uk/privacy-policy.
Yours faithfully,
GroupNexus

Coupon-mad

Should the following:
20.       The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim. 
Go before the section on Costs?
19.       (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and
            (b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance.  The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

I wouldn't have any of that if you are adding a counterclaim.  Makes no sense because you'll get a hearing anyway if they discontinue.

Why pay £25 and NOT claim the top ceiling (£300, isn't it?).

Redman2186

Coupon-mad said:

Should the following:
20.       The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim. 
Go before the section on Costs?
19.       (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and
            (b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance.  The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

I wouldn't have any of that if you are adding a counterclaim.  Makes no sense because you'll get a hearing anyway if they discontinue.

Why pay £25 and NOT claim the top ceiling (£300, isn't it?).

Was just looking at template - will post draft of counterclaim either this evening or tomorrow.

I’m going to put counterclaim in for £750 (up to £1000 costs £60):
1. not entitled to request data in first place - £250
2. 2 counts of sharing data with third party - £250 each.
3. Maybe round it up to the £1000 by adding £250 for harassment?

is there anything required for either consumer or harassment point that I’ve noted from other counterclaims. I see how the harassment point could be relevant particularly when I’ve had all the demanding debt collection letters. Wasn’t sure on the consumer point.