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

Redman2186

KeithP said:

you have until 4pm on Tuesday 1st June 2021 to file your Defence.

Thanks for the timeline - I'm on the case and will drop a draft in the forum once ready over the coming days.

Redman2186

Coupon-mad said:

read any Highview thread to understand why we are not going to repeat it all over again!  Shedloads of 2015 PCN Highview treads here (makes no odds that yours is from 2016). Same advice applies and the threads just like yours are all recent, all available for you to read in the first twenty pages or more of the forum right now. 

Thanks - Will read through the recent threads and incorporate relevant points into defence.

Redman2186

Redx said:

Post your draft paragraphs 2 and 3 fruitcake's below for critique

I note from fruitcake's response that I should "amend paragraphs 2 and 3 and post just them here for the regulars to check. When you get the original NTK from your SAR you will be able to compare it to the strict requirements of the POFA. Highview NTKs were not PoFA compliant back when the original event occurred"
Question
What happens if I do not get SAR back prior to Defence submission date - am I still in a position to argue POFA or does that weaken the argument if I'm unable to provide comparison?

Redx

If it's a keeper but not the driver ( or driver not known )  in paragraph 2 then argue POFA in 3 because HIGHVIEW have never complied with POFA

POFA does not assist a driver , so we want to see both paragraphs in order to help you adjust them , hypothetical questions do not help , just post them and repeat with changes until good to go

Anyone admitting to being keeper and driver in 2 cannot use POFA in 3

A SAR reply can be more use in several months time , it's ancillary to the court process

Redman2186

Fruitcake said:

Very well done to you on your research so far. It makes it so much easier for the regulars when posters do this before they come here.

Thanks - in response to your answers/points:

Complain to the landowner - Done via Waterfields website 

Get pics of the site and signage - Done (attached for reference) - clearest, I could get from GSV, these are from 2017, only other date on GSV was 2014 (showed same signage) - It's local will take a trip on the off chance that they still have the same signs up for better resolution.

1st Picture as you drive in - I will include a wider shot in WS as it is on passenger side, on a bend. 
2nd Picture - View as you enter, sporadic signage. 
3rd Picture - Refers to full terms and conditions on other signs
4th Picture - Shows £85 plus T&Cs etc.

Tell us the precise location - Waterfield's Retail Park, Watford 

Thoroughly read and understand the guide to court written by bargepole - On my to-do list

Issue date, 0f the claim form and when the AoS was done - 28th Apr, AOS filed 6th May, Keith has kindly noted 1st June 4pm deadline for submission of defence.

NTK from your SAR - What happens if Group Nexus don't respond, i.e. I have nothing to compare against. Can I still argue POFA point in para 2/3 of defence or is there an alternate place. 

It's too late to tell the scamlicitors you are seeking debt advice and request they put the case on hold. That needs to be done before the claim is issued - Understood, that was a copy and paste from one of the forum posts early in research

We recall nothing of the date in question, can only assume that it was a long shopping trip where multiple stores were visited - Thanks

Explain what happened (if known), what type of car park it was (retail hospital, residential, pay and display etcetera.  Waterfield's Retail Park, Watford

Redman2186

Redx said:

If it's a keeper but not the driver ( or driver not known )  in paragraph 2 then argue POFA in 3 because HIGHVIEW have never complied with POFA

POFA does not assist a driver , so we want to see both paragraphs in order to help you adjust them , hypothetical questions do not help , just post them and repeat with changes until good to go

Anyone admitting to being keeper and driver in 2 cannot use POFA in 3

A SAR reply can be more use in several months time , it's ancillary to the court process

Thanks - Clear - will get on with draft of Para 2 & 3 over next couple of evening with my wife. 2 will be Keeper (driver not known) 

beamerguy

This business about damages DCBL claim ?   They are away with the fairies and they certainly don't understand the ruling of the Supreme court

So you know from the "horses" mouth what the Supreme court ruled, please read this thread and scroll down to post today at 11.50am ......  Watch the actual video of the hearing.
"The main reason for the £85 charge was to meet the costs of enforcing the parking rules"
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6265050/beavis-insight-motorway-services-insight-and-claims-lost-in-court#latest

You are showing that you are very smart guy.  The Supreme Court sets a precedence 

With DCBL, it's a mugging attempt ..... who will the county court judge believe, the High Supreme court or a legal who has a junk TV programme ... "can't pay, we'll take it away"

SIMPLY PUT ... A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IS RUBBISH
 

Redx

Redman2186 said:

Redx said:

If it's a keeper but not the driver ( or driver not known )  in paragraph 2 then argue POFA in 3 because HIGHVIEW have never complied with POFA

POFA does not assist a driver , so we want to see both paragraphs in order to help you adjust them , hypothetical questions do not help , just post them and repeat with changes until good to go

Anyone admitting to being keeper and driver in 2 cannot use POFA in 3

A SAR reply can be more use in several months time , it's ancillary to the court process

Thanks - Clear - will get on with draft of Para 2 & 3 over next couple of evening with my wife. 2 will be Keeper (driver not known) 

Good , now no more questions until we have debated your adapted paragraphs after you have posted them on here for critique

The sooner you start , the sooner they can be honed to be razor sharp

Redman2186

beamerguy said:

This business about damages DCBL claim ?   They are away with the fairies and they certainly don't understand the ruling of the Supreme court

So you know from the "horses" mouth what the Supreme court ruled, please read this thread and scroll down to post today at 11.50am ......  Watch the actual video of the hearing.
"The main reason for the £85 charge was to meet the costs of enforcing the parking rules"
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6265050/beavis-insight-motorway-services-insight-and-claims-lost-in-court#latest

You are showing that you are very smart guy.  The Supreme Court sets a precedence 

With DCBL, it's a mugging attempt ..... who will the county court judge believe, the High Supreme court or a legal who has a junk TV programme ... "can't pay, we'll take it away"

SIMPLY PUT ... A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IS RUBBISH
 

Have watched thanks -
Question
Would I want to make reference to this in defence? The reason that I ask is, this is related to the original penalty charge amount of £85 and whether this relates to fair amount is it not - also later in the video does the supreme court reject this argument around 7mins?
Should the defence not be related to unsubstantiated claim for damage and interest etc. as opposed to challenging the original amount of penalty charge?

Redman2186

Redx said:

Good , now no more questions until we have debated your adapted paragraphs after you have posted them on here for critique

Appreciate you said no more questions  - I did raise one further question post Beamerguy's response above as it relates to direction of defence, and will avoid me starting down the wrong path. Post that... no more