HighView Parking LTD - County Court Claim 3 years after apparent PCN

patient_dream

Others may well pick holes in their WS but here is one BIG hole

DISMISSAL OF CLAIM    xvii

To try and substantiate their fake £70, they refer to the Semark-Jullien case.
This case was all about Abuse of Process and ended up as a damp squib.
The Judge made an error by not understanding the Parking Eye v Beavis case 

The judge stated the extra charge did not fall foul because it was not the point of the case ?

As Parking Eye do not add fake charges, of course it was not a point as it was never mentioned throughout the case ....... however, the ruling of the case stated as follows:-
"The main reason for the charge was to meet the costs of enforcing the parking rules" 

Debt collection is enforcing (or an attempt) and the Supreme court made it very clear above.

What is a fact is that DCBL by adding the fake £70, they are attempting double recovery which is not allowed and is Abuse of Process

WHAT PART OF THESE WORDS DON'T DCBL UNDERSTAND
"The main reason for the charge was to meet the costs of enforcing the parking rules" 

Coupon-mad

Yes and no, that's not a defence to the PCN itself so I'd hate this OP to get further confused.

The OP should have been reading other DCBLegal threads and would have known what to expect and what their template WS looks like. 

And I'd be asking your local court, by phone this week, why didn't you get the Order from the local court about the upcoming hearing date and your deadline to file snd serve your own WS and evidence, which you know from all our advice threads, is the next stage for you?

The local court doesn't hold an old address for you on the claim form, does it?

Ring the local court urgently and ask the clerk to please email you a copy of the hearing Directions and to read out your deadline for WS and evidence because the Claimant knows something you don't..

D_P_Dance

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection.

This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and your MP,

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''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/