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

Redx

There are no Penalty charges issued by private parking companies , only invoices ,the words penalty or fine have no place in this topic , at no time was the word penalty used , other than to state that in the Beavis case it was about contract law and never a penalty. Parking eye have been very specific in avoiding those legal traps since 2015 , unlike HIGHVIEW

The Beavis case was a parking charge notice for £85 issued by post from Parking Eye to Barry Beavis at the DVLA obtained keeper address where POFA was a factor because the claimant complied, whereas POFA is not complied with in your case by HIGHVIEW because they never do comply , despite 8.5 years to do so

My advice is do what I said and accept any critique about your draft gracefully , accept that the replies will concentrate the issues , otherwise you run the risk of overthinking it. This is a marathon , not a sprint , you cannot learn this complicated topic in a short time

The point beamerguy was making is that the costs of recovery were deemed to be included in the Beavis case in that £85 charge , so any additional charges are spurious and objected to in the defence

But coupon mad already included that in one of the latter numbers in the defence !! So it's already in it !! In 9 to 13

But it's no defence to the actual PCN , it's a sideshow by many greedy applicants like Nexus , whereas Parking Eye never add them in due to the Beavis case !

Redman2186

Redx said:

My advice is do what I said and accept any critique about your draft gracefully , accept that the replies will concentrate the issues , otherwise you run the risk of overthinking it. This is a marathon , not a sprint , you cannot learn this complicated topic in a short time

First pass at Para 2 & 3:

2). 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 date nearly 5 years ago.

3). 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 £268.71. 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.

a). The Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question notes that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4.

b). In the Particulars of Claim it is stated that the Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper but the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that Defendant was also the driver. A compliant Notices to Keeper was not properly served in strict accordance with Paragraph 9, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of the PoFA, which states that Notice to Keeper must be sent within 14 days beginning with the day after alleged parking event ended to keep defendant liable for the charges as the keeper of vehicle.

c). PATAS and 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).

d). The Defendant does not recall receiving the original PCN. The Defendant upon receiving the Claim Form has subsequently requested a copy via Subject Access Request to Group Nexus (who through research the Defendant now understand own Highview Parking Limited).

e). The Defendant does recall receiving multiple "debt collection" letters over the years that can only be described as extremely threatening and harassing in nature from multiple different senders (there was always a different name/company). The letters all appeared to demand immediate action on the part of the Defendant and gave rise to the feeling that they must be part of some sort of scam. It felt like the Defendant was being harassed in to hastily handing over money (with ever changing amounts) in order to avoid further costs down the line, court visits and an impending CCJ that would impact on the Defendant livelihood. The Defendant ignored these threatening “Debt Collection” type letters believing that they could be part of a scam.

Coupon-mad

That's very good!  A thorough example for a Highview claim. 

Others can learn from that because you've covered the issues except for pointing out that there is a falsehood in the Particulars of Claim.  Here is one I wrote half an hour ago for a case just like yours, where I've suggested what to say about the untrue POC:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78308276/#Comment_78308276

I am hoping we find a Judge who thinks the misleading template POC being trotted out by Highview means they are sailing close to the wind of contempt of court.  They can't lie about keeper liability in a court claim and they KNOW they don't use the POFA, they never have.   This is not a mistake or oversight, it's deliberately misleading.   The POFA Sch 4 is not mandatory (because parking firms can issue driver-only PCN like this one) and they've muddled along for years without having to bother about statutory wording or deadlines, which has suited them because most clueless victims pay or appeal, blabbing about who the driver was, so that the POFA doesn't matter to Highview as people hand over everything they need on a plate.

Thing is though, they can't now lie on court forms about keeper liability..

Redx

Agreed

Add that untruth and then renumber each paragraph before slotting it in instead of the template 2 and 3 , then renumber the subsequent paragraphs in the rest of the template to suit

Then wait for any subsequent remarks in case anything else comes up or needs changing

Other HIGHVIEW Court cases threads should use your draft as a basis for their own cases , after you add that untruth , which is probably a dcb Legal untruth by a paralegal who cannot add up either. I do not think this will get to an actual phone hearing !!

Redman2186

Redx said:

 renumber each paragraph before slotting it in instead of the template 2 and 3 , then renumber the subsequent paragraphs in the rest of the template to suit

Then wait for any subsequent remarks in case anything else comes up or needs changing

Other HIGHVIEW Court cases threads should use your draft as a basis for their own cases , after you add that untruth , which is probably a dcb Legal untruth by a paralegal who cannot add up either. I do not think this will get to an actual phone hearing !!

Just to make sure I'm reading this correctly - my 3a. should read 4, 3b should read 5 and so on, which then requires a renumber of all subsequent paras?

KeithP

Redman2186 said:

Redx said:

 renumber each paragraph before slotting it in instead of the template 2 and 3 , then renumber the subsequent paragraphs in the rest of the template to suit

Then wait for any subsequent remarks in case anything else comes up or needs changing

Other HIGHVIEW Court cases threads should use your draft as a basis for their own cases , after you add that untruth , which is probably a dcb Legal untruth by a paralegal who cannot add up either. I do not think this will get to an actual phone hearing !!

Just to make sure I'm reading this correctly - my 3a. should read 4, 3b should read 5 and so on, which then requires a renumber of all subsequent paras?

Yes, that's what I would do.

The numbering is only there to make it easy for everyone to understand which points are being discussed.
The numbers are not there to indicate any kind of relationship between paragraphs.

Redman2186

I've renumbered, included the BOLD under [3] and also added untruth [6] with a couple of tweaks/questions for your thoughts particularly around the mention of Highview never having used PoFA wording.

2). 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 date nearly 5 years ago.

3). 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 £268.71 (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.

4). The Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question notes that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), Schedule 4.

5). In the Particulars of Claim ('POC') it is stated that the Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper but the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that Defendant was also the driver. A compliant Notices to Keeper was not properly served in strict accordance with Paragraph 9, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of the PoFA, which states that Notice to Keeper must be sent within 14 days beginning with the day after alleged parking event ended to keep defendant liable for the charges as the keeper of vehicle.

6). Following on from [4] & [5], 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 (Yasmin Mia- Include or Not??) 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'.  (Coupan-mad: Is the intention to keep the following **....** or should it be re-phrased to Claimant or omitted as could they not provide as evidence an updated PCN with correct PoFA wording which would put this point into dispute? **This can never be the case with a Highview 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 of how they arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £211.71 (The Defendant has excluded the £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs for the purposes of this defence point) 

7). PATAS and 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).

8). The Defendant does not recall receiving the original PCN. The Defendant upon receiving the Claim Form has subsequently requested a copy via Subject Access Request to Group Nexus (who through research the Defendant now understand own Highview Parking Limited).

9). The Defendant does recall receiving multiple "debt collection" letters over the years that can only be described as extremely threatening and harassing in nature from multiple different senders (there was always a different name/company). The letters all appeared to demand immediate action on the part of the Defendant and gave rise to the feeling that they must be part of some sort of scam. It felt like the Defendant was being harassed in to hastily handing over money (with ever changing amounts) in order to avoid further costs down the line, court visits and an impending CCJ that would impact on the Defendant livelihood. The Defendant ignored these threatening “Debt Collection” type letters believing that they could be part of a scam.

Coupon-mad

 (Coupon-mad: Is the intention to keep the following **....**

Yes, keep it.

 or should it be re-phrased to Claimant or omitted as could they not provide as evidence an updated PCN with correct PoFA wording which would put this point into dispute? 

Nope, they can't.  Highview simply don't have a POFA PCN.  Never have, because they never bothered.  As I explained, they don't need to use the POFA all the time the great British Public rush to pay at the 'discount' or send in weak, knee-jerk appeals that blab about being the driver and hand the PPC everything on a plate!

beamerguy

Redman2186 said:

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?

The point of watching the video was not to over ride everything you have been told which is 100% correct

You have now seen as a visual from a Supreme court judge giving the ruling and DCBL or any other legal does NOT have the power to go against it.
The £85 mentioned was later increased to £100 by the two greedy ATA's

We don't know if Yasmin Mia is a real person and sooner or later she will be called to court to explain why she signs a statement of truth which is not true.

You can show a video in court from your own device

Redman2186

Updated where  BOLD in 2) and 6).

Couple of questions in 6) denoted by ** Question

2). 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 date nearly 5 years ago.

3). 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 £268.71 (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.

4). The Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question notes that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), Schedule 4.

5). In the Particulars of Claim ('POC') it is stated that the Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper but the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that Defendant was also the driver. A compliant Notices to Keeper was not properly served in strict accordance with Paragraph 9, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of the PoFA, which states that Notice to Keeper must be sent within 14 days beginning with the day after alleged parking event ended to keep defendant liable for the charges as the keeper of vehicle.

6). Following on from [4] & [5], 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 **Questions - Yasmin Mia - Include her name or just stick with Claimant's legal rep??** 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 of how they arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £211.71 (breakdown: £155 being the total of the PCN and damages plus interest at a rate of 8%) **Question - Is it also worth noting that the rate of 8% per annum is completely arbitrary, with the Bank of England base rate being 0.1% and Top Savings Account in the region of 1%**. The Defendant has excluded the £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

7). PATAS and 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).

8). The Defendant does not recall receiving the original PCN. The Defendant upon receiving the Claim Form has subsequently requested a copy via Subject Access Request to Group Nexus (who, through research the Defendant now understands own Highview Parking Limited).

9). The Defendant does recall receiving multiple "debt collection" letters over the years that can only be described as extremely threatening and harassing in nature from multiple different senders (there was always a different name/company). The letters all appeared to demand immediate action on the part of the Defendant and gave rise to the feeling that they must be part of some sort of scam. It felt like the Defendant was being harassed in to hastily handing over money (with ever changing amounts) in order to avoid further costs down the line, court visits and an impending CCJ that would impact on the Defendant livelihood. The Defendant ignored these threatening “Debt Collection” type letters believing that they could be part of a scam.