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

Redman2186

Final version of defence pulling together all updates from comments for quick check and keeps it all together in one place

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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. 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.

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 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.

KeithP

Redman2186 said:

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).

Do you need to expand that paragraph so that it starts:
7). The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Lead Adjudicator...

Redx

In 3) , I would add the value of the original PCN , so relates to an £85 pcn , or £100 PCN , or whatever the charge was , showing how badly it's been inflated from say £85 to £268.71

Otherwise , I like it very much. 👍👍

Redman2186

Will update the points to 3) & 7) later today 
Just got through the following email from DPO @ Nexus:
Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your message.

In order for us to process your Data Subject Access Request efficiently and locate your data quickly we ask you to please complete and return the attached form.
 
Whilst we appreciate that completing an in-house form is not a requirement under the legislation, we find that it helps individuals formalise their requests and focus on what is required which assists us in locating and processing your request as quickly and efficiently as possible.
 
We are also required under GDPR to validate your identity prior to releasing personal data so we ask for copies of the documents listed on the form. We confirm receipt of proof of address so please provide proof of ID.

Please note that your DSAR 30-day timescale does not apply until your identity has been validated.

Yours faithfully,

GroupNexus

Redx

So as Umkomaas predicted. , Hence my comment about why I would have sent 3 copies of I D , but not passport or driving licence due to the extra data on them like photos and date of birth etc , one being a copy of the claim form and 2 utility bills , but didn't know about the shredding incident !!  😀😀😀

PS , I approve of both if those new changes in 3 & 7

Redman2186

Redx said:

So as Umkomaas predicted. , Hence my comment about why I would have sent 3 copies of I D , but not passport or driving licence due to the extra data on them like photos and date of birth etc , one being a copy of the claim form and 2 utility bills , but didn't know about the shredding incident !!  😀😀😀

PS , I approve of both if those new changes in 3 & 7

Will send them a scanned copy of the sellotaped Claim Form as proof of ID - given it has Highview Parking, Defendant Name, Defendant Address, Defendant Vehicle Reg and their PCN Ref. I struggle to see how they can claim it would not suffice. 

Will also send a nicely worded note in relation to "we find that it helps individuals formalise their requests and focus on what is required" -
My request is fully formalised and focused on what is required... 

Please supply the data about me that I am entitled to under data protection law  relating to myself.

All data that you hold relating to me included but not limited to:

- all photos taken
- all letters/emails sent and received, including any appeal correspondence earlier
- all data held
- a full copy of the PCN

1505grandad

Para 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)"

Just checking  -  in your opening post you state:-

"AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1.  £155 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages. 

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.03 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees 

Amount claimed – 211.71

Court fee - 25.00

Legal representative's Costs - 50.00

Total amount – 286.71

Signed by Yasmin Mia"

Have some figures for total amount been reversed?

Coupon-mad

I find Group Nexus asking who was driving as a question in their new 'SAR form' absolutely reprehensible and sneaky.  This is a PPC who know they can't hold a keeper liable so they put an irrelevant question into their SAR form that effectively tricks people into coughing up who was driving. 

This is using a SAR for a purpose that it is not meant to be used, in order to make it easier for Group Nexus to sue vicitims.

When I raised this with the BPA recently (whose previous comment to me, in a conversation that touched upon another PPC firm making the driver's name a condition of a SAR was that the BPA believed that this was ''wrong on so many levels'') they changed their tune and said they aren't prepared to get involved because it's not a Code breach.

Redman2186

1505grandad said:

Have some figures for total amount been reversed?

No 
They arrive at the 211.71 Amount via the following A=Principal(1+Rate of Interest*Duration)
211.71 = 155(1+0.08*4.5) - I've rounded years to 4.5
Original PCN per signage would have been £85 so the have added a random £70 in damages

KeithP

Redman2186 said:

1505grandad said:

Have some figures for total amount been reversed?

No 
They arrive at the 211.71 Amount via the following A=Principal(1+Rate of Interest*Duration)
211.71 = 155(1+0.08*4.5) - I've rounded years to 4.5
Original PCN per signage would have been £85 so the have added a random £70 in damages

Well one of those figures that @1505grandad mentioned is wrong.

Is the figure £268.71 or £286.71?