Highview Dec 2015 Court Claim

Nico2021

Hi there,

Firstly, thank you for all of the brilliant help you give everyone on these forums – I’ve done lots of reading and research and have found it very useful.

Brief Context

I (as registered keeper) received a PCN on 6th Jan 2016 for an alleged contravention on 31st Dec 2015 at Bradfield Road car park in Sheffield. Unfortunately, we didn’t keep any paperwork (I found a note I made saying the PCN was received on 6th Jan 2016, but I don’t have any detail about the time of the overstay Highview are claiming, etc.)
At the time, I had thought the best advice was to ignore the letters, but I now realised I should have appealed and I’m kicking myself.

We received several letters from DCB legal (13.12.19 and 16.12.20 are the only ones I kept and filed) which I ignored.

We have now received a claim form on 27th April which I acknowledged service for on 6.5.21 (they received AoS 7.5.21)

I checked the PCN details on Group Nexus, as per the most recent thread for a Highview PCN (thank you Redman2186!) and now have details of a stay of 11 mins and 38 seconds with images unavailable and a charge of £169.

I remember the event – my husband and I were both insured on the car so I'm unsure who was driving that day. We were returning an item to Dunelm (store no longer there). I stayed in the car, he popped in. The car park is pay and display, but we now realise that there are two sections to the car park (not clearly marked) and we had parked in the section that was ‘private land’. We were 1 min 38 seconds over the grace period.

Particulars of Claim:
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle ….. at Bradfield Road Car Park, Sheffield
2. The PCN details are 31/12/2015 ....... 
3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s).
4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the POCN(s) is outstanding. The Contract entitles C to damages.

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 – 221.06
Court fee - 25.00
Legal representative's Costs - 50.00
Total amount – 296.06
Signed by Yasmin Mia

I have read the Newbies Read and to-date have actioned the following:
14.5.21
1. Requested Subject Access Request as per the advice on here – they responded with a form for me to complete. After more reading on the forums, I realise I should have ignored this and just sent one proof of address, but I completed it and sent them the forms of ID requested
2. Emailed DCB Legal to say that I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 20
(I now realise this won’t have an impact)
3. Complained to the retailer, MP and councillor. Am about to complain to the landowner. (No response from the retailer, MP and councillor were sympathetic, but nothing they can do)

4. I haven’t yet completed a directions questionnaire – would I do this before or after I submit my defence?

 

Here is my defence, adapted from the most recent Highview thread:

This is mostly copied from the Redman2186 thread

I would really appreciate a check, as well as any advice around things I could take action on that I haven’t already. I don’t have a printer or scanner, so am planning on adding an electronic signature and emailing as per KeithP’s advice. I am very much hoping that Highview decide not to pursue this to court, however I’m ready to get writing my witness statement and collating my evidence and feel pretty confident off the back of all of your support here. Thank you again!

Questions so far:

1. for 3i) what would be a relevant argument to add here? I think (and this may show my lack of understanding of all this complex stuff) I am defending on the basis of PoFA, and also the lack of clear signage?

2. I don't have the original PCN and am going off the data found on the group nexus website with the PCN number provided on the court claim docs - how can I phrase 3ii) to reflect this but still argue PoFA? Nothing back from the SAR yet.

3. This might be a really stupid question, apologies for my lack of understanding here - what other sections do I now paste across from CouponMad's template defence to complete my defence?

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). 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. 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 nearly 5 and a half years ago.

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(s) at the material time is unknown to the Defendant, who was not the only insured driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was or was not driving nearly 5 and a half years ago.  The Defendant made a Subject Access Request ('SAR') to the Claimant on 14th May 2021. No response has yet been received. Data acquired using the Parking Charge Notice ('PCN') reference number on the Claimant’s website shows an alleged stay of 11 minutes and 38 seconds.

(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. 1 minute and 38 seconds over the ‘grace period’ indicated in the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015

(ii)       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. Which then leads to the question, how does the Claimant arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £221.06. 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).

 

Redx

Was the issue date 27th of April ? Nobody cares when you received it

1) pofa , signage , no landowner authority , the BPA CoP in force at the time , no naming the driver on an unremarkable day nearly 6 years ago etc , for 2 and 3 , bearing in mind that the template defence covers most of those issues anyway

So read a dozen similar HIGHVIEW and c p plus case threads for suitable ambiguous wording , including redmans , for your 2 , plus your 3 and over , possibly up to 5 paragraphs in total , keep it concise , like these ones

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6262481/claim-form-issued-2015/p1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78335506#Comment_78335506

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78336724#Comment_78336724

3) delete the 2 & 3 from her template , slot your paragraphs in , renumber accordingly

beamerguy

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). 

So, DCBL are saying that a £100 parking ticket turns into £221 ???  No doubt this includes an amount for interest which courts normally will not allow, 
The facts are simple, DCBL are lying to you as they are doing to everyone.  The current rubbish from DCBL is they have added £60 pretending it is for damages ?   TOTAL RUBBISH

Was the claim signed by a YASMIN MIA stating it was true (a statement of truth)
FAKE CLAIMS PRODUCED BY DCBL ARE NOT TRUE

READ ABOUT DCBL HERE

DCBL letters ... forum group thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6237177/dcbl-letters-forum-group-thread#latest

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Nico2021

Redx said:

Was the issue date 27th of April ? Nobody cares when you received it

1) pofa , signage , no landowner authority , the BPA CoP in force at the time , no naming the driver on an unremarkable day nearly 6 years ago etc , for 2 and 3 , bearing in mind that the template defence covers most of those issues anyway

So read a dozen similar HIGHVIEW and c p plus case threads for suitable ambiguous wording , including redmans , for your 2 , plus your 3 and over , possibly up to 5 paragraphs in total , keep it concise , like these ones

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6262481/claim-form-issued-2015/p1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78335506#Comment_78335506

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78336724#Comment_78336724

3) delete the 2 & 3 from her template , slot your paragraphs in , renumber accordingly

Yes, the issue date was 27th April. Thank you so much for this clarification - I will get researching and put a more thorough draft up for a check before I submit it.

Nico2021

beamerguy said:

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). 

So, DCBL are saying that a £100 parking ticket turns into £221 ???  No doubt this includes an amount for interest which courts normally will not allow, 
The facts are simple, DCBL are lying to you as they are doing to everyone.  The current rubbish from DCBL is they have added £60 pretending it is for damages ?   TOTAL RUBBISH

Was the claim signed by a YASMIN MIA stating it was true (a statement of truth)
FAKE CLAIMS PRODUCED BY DCBL ARE NOT TRUE

READ ABOUT DCBL HERE

DCBL letters ... forum group thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6237177/dcbl-letters-forum-group-thread#latest

Yes, the claim form was signed by Yasmin Mia. I will have a read, thank you!

Nico2021

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

27th April

D_P_Dance

Total amount – 296.06
Signed by Yasmin Mia

That does not seem right, read this

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

Perhaps you should write to Ms Mia asking her for an explanation.  She will no doubt cite the ATA's code of practice which has no lawful status.  Copy to your MP.

KeithP

Nico2021 said:

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

27th April

With a Claim Issue Date of 27th April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 1st June 2021 to file your Defence.

That's almost two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Nico2021

Thank you again for all of your advice. I have explored several more of the similar threads and have adapted my section 2 and 3. Am I ready to submit this now, using Keith P's instructions?

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. 1 minute and 38 seconds over the ‘grace period’ indicated in the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015.

(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).

Redx

You talk about grace periods above , the rules on those were listed and in force in the relevant BPA CoP at the time and date of the incident in 2015

I have no idea why you mentioned those other regulations , the BPA CoP would have had 2 grace periods , before and also after any parking event , of say up to ten minutes either side of parking. I don't see what those regulations you posted above have to do with this ?