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

Redx

Stick with claimant's legal rep , because you don't know if her work was checked by a qualified solicitor and being too specific can be counter productive, Think about it as in parliament , where no names are used in debates

Save the breakdown for the witness statement , you don't want the defence too long , it should be concise , opening doors to the WS and setting the scene , not spouting the whole play

Redman2186

Maybe at this point:

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%)

It is worth then referring to Defence [4] in CoupanMad template which will be [10] in mine ---- Something like

Which then leads to the question of how they arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £211.71 as outlined in [10] through [14] (CoupanMad Temp 4 through 8).

Should i also leave breakdown in [2] out.

Redx

I cannot see anything wrong with 2 and would leave it alone

I see nothing wrong with the draft from last night at 23.45 pm and I believe that you are over thinking it and should save the remarks for the WS , a defence should be concise whereas you run the risk of burying the point in minute details and lose the point of that argument because of it

Let the WS run riot if you wish , but I prefer last night's draft that contains the untruth and renumbering

Redman2186

Cheers redx - cleaned up & minor grammar update.

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 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. 

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.

Redman2186

Separate topic - does anyone have a steer on how long it typically takes Group Nexus to respond to an SAR?
Appreciate they have 30 days, however, I never received an automated response, so just want to double check I'm hitting the correct recipient.
For ref: email was sent to DPO@groupnexus.co.uk Evening of Tuesday 4th May 

Redx

5 seems incorrect to me

It says Notices (plural) instead of Notice (singular) , only one can be sent

It says sent within 14 days , whereas it should actually arrive within 14 days , making the true figure sent within 12 days so that it arrives by or on day 14 , this is a crucial POFA point !!

Check what POFA says and and amend accordingly

Umkomaas

You'll get a very fast response, but it won't be what you are looking for. They will send you a pro forma to complete asking whether or not you were the driver and requiring copies of your passport or driving licence as proof of ID. Don't send copies of those.  You will then need to take this up with the ICO.  Read other Highview/CP Plus/Group Nexus threads to understand this ploy and what others have done.   This won't be a quickie!

beamerguy

Redx is right, keep your cool 
With what I read here, you are in the drivers seat (so to speak, meaning you can lead the way.)
Questioning the breakdown is vital and a full explanation of damages.
The more question marks you can put in front of a judge the better.

I have done this helping another member here, different PPC and legal. The judge said to the legal rep ... "this is not going well for you is it ?"   Case dismissed with £95 costs.
Great experience and after, the legal rep said well done, I said thanks, see you again soon  ... as he picked up his tail and walked away.

beamerguy

As Umkomaas says above.

Group Nexus are playing hardball expecting you to provide personal info such as a drivers licence or passport ?   According to one member, Nexus say that the ICO has said it's OK.

All that is needed is a copy of your V5 .... this confirms the information they have already otherwise they could not have contacted you. Plus a redacted copy of a utility bill

If Nexus fail then report them to the ICO and at the same time asking why have the ICO given permission to Nexus to provide two personal items that can be cloned allowing personal data when the ICO has an obligation to protect your data

Welcome to an industry full of sleeze and stupidity

Redman2186

(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

Attempted Re-word of 5).

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. The Defendant cannot be held liable for the charges as the keeper of the vehicle. The Claimant did not properly serve a compliant notice to keeper in strict accordance with Paragraph 9, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of the PoFA, which states that notice to keeper must be delivered within the relevant period. Where the relevant period is defined as the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.