Advice on court defence submission - Highview parking Ltd

RCDSP21

Hi

I received a county court claim form (issue date 28th April) regarding parking charges from Highview parking dating back to November 2016.

I have not replied to any correspondence from Highview and have since moved home and have also received numerous debt collection/legal firm letters to my new address which I ignored as they appeared scam like/threatening.

I have read through the newbies thread and so far have actioned as follows;

• completed the acknowledgement of service online (on3rd May)
• Sent a SAR 
• Emailed their solicitor.

I know with certainty that I was not driving the car on this occasion as I had been dropped off to go into a Matalan store to collect a parcel left by DPD leaving the driver in the car waiting for me. 

My SAR request was returned on Wednesday with 3 letters from Highview and details that the car was there for a duration of 22 minutes and shows that the initial charge notice was sent within 14 days of the specified parking date.

I have read through numerous Highview threads and have adapted the defence template as below based on a previous posters letter, please could someone advise on the following;

• In point 2 should I write that the driver is unknown or should I confirm that I was definitely not the driver? 
• Do I remove point 5 re PoFA completely as the letters sent via my SAR show the initial letter was dated 11 days after the parking date? 
• Is there anything else that I need to add?

Many thanks for any advice on this, I appreciate that this is close to the deadline for defence submission (I believe 1st June by 4pm?) but I have a lot on my plate at present and have not had chance until now to properly read through all the previous threads to ascertain the correct process/advice.

The facts as known to the Defendant:1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.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 driving on that unremarkable day over 4 and a half 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 £305.24 (inclusive of £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). Through research the Defendant has come to understand the PCN(s) relates to a PCN(s) that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle XXX, over 4 and a half years ago on XX November 2016 at XXX.4). The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.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 £230.24. 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). 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).

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

RCDSP21 said:

Hi

I received a county court claim form (issue date 28th April) regarding parking charges from Highview parking dating back to November 2016.

I have read through the newbies thread and so far have actioned as follows;

• completed the acknowledgement of service online (on3rd May)

I appreciate that this is close to the deadline for defence submission (I believe 1st June by 4pm?)...

You are right about your Defence filing deadline but there may be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th 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 just a few days away but plenty of time to produce a Defence.

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.

Redx

In 2) you state that you are or were the keeper but were definitely not the driver ( no need to reveal who was driving )

5)  keep POFA , it protects you as a non driving keeper , because it's not just the dates , HIGHVIEW failed to comply with POFA on various issues , like wording and no valid POFA warning

To the best of my knowledge , HIGHVIEW have NEVER complied with POFA , especially not the correct details and wording , even if they did manage to get the PCN issued in time !!

Because you appear to have done your research then I think you have covered everything , providing the AOS and SAR were done

When the legals send you a letter asking questions , ignore it ! If you want to know why , read half a dozen recent HIGHVIEW cases

RCDSP21

Thank you for your help, just to confirm is everything from point 4 onwards in the October 20 template to be included?
 I.e I write as per my adaptation above and then point 4 in the original (October 20) template becomes #8). ? 

Redx

That is correct , replace paragraphs 2 and 3 from the template defence with your final paragraphs , then renumber so the old 4 becomes 8 or whatever , such that the numbering starts from 1 and flows as normal

As keeper who wasn't driving , you have no liability whatsoever , plus you do not hav to reveal who was driving to anyone at all !!

The claimant can ask , you can refuse to elaborate , no law compels you to do so , it is the claimants problem , one they cannot solve

Coupon-mad

I have not replied to any correspondence from Highview

Gah!  ONE EMAIL would have cancelled that PCN at the time, within 48 hours.  For years, we've laughed about how easy HIghview ones were/are to appeal.

RCDSP21

Hi

I am just completing a N180 form and wondered if it would be advisable to have a witness at the potential court hearing? (ie someone who can confirm that I was not the driver).

Thank you in advance for any advice.

Coupon-mad

Yes, as this is Highview, not being the driver is a sucker punch to knock out the claim.  So put TWO witnesses (you are one as well).

Jenni_D

If the OP is the defendant then they are expected to be at the hearing, so surely only one witness should be listed? (AIUI the N180 is [partly] to determine how many people are expected to be at the hearing, so the Defence's side will be 1x Defendant and 1x Witness).

PS - I hope the intended witness was not the actual driver on the day. (If it is then that could make things awkward if the judge asks the witness "Was it you that was driving?" given that you can't commit perjury).

Redx

If in any doubt , add higher rather than lower numbers , say 2 or 3 , just to be sure

Given that it will most likely be a remote hearing and not in person then it doesn't matter about room size , but if there were 20 witnesses then room size mattered before covid19 , but in parking matters it's usually a handful at most

At this stage it's a guide , nobody will mind if less witnesses join the hearing

KeithP

The number of witnesses to be heard also helps the court determine the length of time that should be allowed for a hearing.