Highview Dec 2015 Court Claim

Nico2021

Apologies, all of this is very unfamiliar to me and I am learning on the go... Would you suggest I remove? Or change to something like:
Data acquired using the Parking Charge Notice ('PCN') reference number on the Claimant’s website (in lieu of the original PCN which has been misplaced over the 5-and-a-half-year period) shows an alleged stay of 11 minutes and 38 seconds which would be allowed for within the grace period outlined in the BPA CoP.

Redx

Periods , plural , and give the version number and add what the acronyms mean before the abbreviations

Seems better to me , but await more comments

Nico2021

In addition to the defence, I'm attempting to complain to the landowner (I have already complained to the retailer, Dunelm, 14.5.21 - no reply so far) but I can only find a postal address. There is a number that I've hunted down (I thought I could ask for an email address) but it doesn't accept incoming calls. Would posting the complaint be the best option here? It's Birch Park Investments Limited

Nico2021

Hi there, thank you again for all of your support with this so far. I'm thinking of submitting my defence to check. Do my sections 2 and 3 look like they are good to go?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. 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 £296.06 (inclusive of £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs) to an £85 Parking Charge Notice (‘PCN’). Through research the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle xxxx-yyy almost 5-and-half-years-ago on 31st December 2015 at Bradfield Road Car Park, Sheffield.

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 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 that unremarkable day nearly 5-and-a half-years-ago.

(i)  Data acquired using the Parking Charge Notice ('PCN') reference number on the Claimant’s website (in lieu of the original PCN which has been misplaced over the 5-and-a-half-year period) shows an alleged stay of 11 minutes and 38 seconds which would be allowed for within the grace periods outlined in the British Parking Association Code of Practice (13.4 version 6, Oct 2015), which the Claimant is a member of.

(ii) The most prominent signage, at the entrance to Bradfield Road Car Park, suggest that the maximum period of stay is 1 and a half hours. The defendant has issued a Subject Access Request (‘SAR’) to the Claimant on 14th May 2021 requesting copies of the signage from December 2015. No reply has been received to date.

(iii)       The PCN 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.

4. The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not PoFA compliant and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), Schedule 4.

5. Following on from [4] 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, in the same way 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. The Claimant is put to strict proof of how they arrived at the Amount Claimed - a Total of £227.01. The Defendant has excluded the £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

6. The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (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).

1505grandad

A heads-up  -  check amounts in para 5 are the same as in para 2

Nico2021

1505grandad said:

A heads-up  -  check amounts in para 5 are the same as in para 2

Thank you! I've just changed it

Nico2021

Hi there,

After submitting my defence and DQ last week, I’ve had this reply:

Please find attached your Directions Questionnaire which is returned to you as the claimant has not informed us whether they wish to proceed with this claim. 

The Court will notify you if a Directions Questionnaire should be filed.

If you require any further information please contact our helpdesk on the number above. Alternatively you can email us at ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk; Please ensure that you state the above case number in the subject heading of your email. You may also find it useful to visit the frequently asked questions (FAQ’s) section of our website. To locate this page you should go to www.justice.gov.uk and search for ‘CCBC’.

Does this mean the Claimant is no longer able to proceed, or is there a chance they will continue to pursue?

Le_Kirk

Nico2021 said:

Hi there,

After submitting my defence and DQ last week, I’ve had this reply:

Please find attached your Directions Questionnaire which is returned to you as the claimant has not informed us whether they wish to proceed with this claim. 

The Court will notify you if a Directions Questionnaire should be filed.

If you require any further information please contact our helpdesk on the number above. Alternatively you can email us at ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk; Please ensure that you state the above case number in the subject heading of your email. You may also find it useful to visit the frequently asked questions (FAQ’s) section of our website. To locate this page you should go to www.justice.gov.uk and search for ‘CCBC’.

Does this mean the Claimant is no longer able to proceed, or is there a chance they will continue to pursue?

It means  they have not decided yet and have not informed the court of their decision.  They only have 28 days to do this following receipt of your defence from CCBC.  What you don't know is when they sent your defence to the claimant.

Nico2021

Hi again,

Just to provide an update, I received the following letter this morning:

Would you advise a response in line with what I have already provided in my defence (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 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 that unremarkable day nearly 5-and-a half-years-ago.) or should I ignore?

Coupon-mad

Please don’t show us that letter again! Surely you were expecting that one, as posted on DCBL Highview threads dozens of times recently. 

Yes reply because it looks more reasonable but of course you don’t have to name the drivers or show them an old insurance policy that you no longer have anyway.