DCBL/Highview CCBC Claim Form Relating to 3 year old alleged contravention

Pally86

Hi all, first time poster here so please be gentle with me.

Having received a CCBC Claim Form from DCBL / Highview for a 3 year old alleged offense, I've done the obligatory scouring of the forums as far as I could determine I needed to and have followed the instructions in the various threads. 
I just wanted to post here in the hopes of getting some assurance that I am doing the correct thing from the knowledgeable members here at an early stage before I start constructing my defence from the template so kindly provided.  

1. Claim Form Issue Date 12 Oct 2021
2. SAR sent to Highview / GroupNexus 18/10/21
3. Email to DCBL notifying them of the SAR and requesting the case to be put on hold while I seek debt advice on the 18/10/21. Also, they have misspelt my surname on the claim so I have highlighted this to them. 
4. AoS submitted through the MCOL website, also done following the helpful guide supplied on the forum.

My next step are to edit the defence template as required and gather what evidence I can. As I have no recollection of any correspondence from Highview at the time, I feel a little limited on what I can do until the SAR comes back, but will do whatever I can with photographs of signage, receipts from restaurants etc etc.  

Thanks all!

Umkomaas

Good research and you are definitely on track. 

A landowner complaint should be an important step to take, right now. 

4. AoS submitted through the MCOL website, also done following the helpful guide supplied on the forum.

If you can provide us with the Date of Issue shown on the claim form from the Northampton CCBC, and the date of your acknowledgment of service (AOS), forum regular @KeithP will be along with a timetable for you to follow and a number of key actions to move your defence forward. 

Pally86

Just to elaborate on this further as it occurs to me that I have missed some of the detail out...

The Particulars of the Claim are as various others have shared, with the value of £155, plus interest at 8%, plus court and legal fees totalling £259.62.

I believe it is in line with the vast majority of claims being made with the standard arguments about poor signage, hidden fees that weren't agreed to and so on.

If there is any further information that I can give please do let me know.

Cheers! 

Pally86

Umkomaas said:

Good research and you are definitely on track. 

A landowner complaint should be an important step to take, right now. 

4. AoS submitted through the MCOL website, also done following the helpful guide supplied on the forum.

If you can provide us with the Date of Issue shown on the claim form from the Northampton CCBC, and the date of your acknowledgment of service (AOS), forum regular @KeithP will be along with a timetable for you to follow and a number of key actions to move your defence forward. 

Ah yes, sorry I missed the date off the AoS, which was also today the 18 Oct 2021.

Claim Form date of issue is the 12 Oct 2021.

I intend on contacting the landowner and my MP when I have a bit more time. Are there any other steps I can take to assist in this area in general? I think I read somewhere that you can request that the DVLA don't share your information?

Thanks again!

D_P_Dance

The Particulars of the Claim are as various others have shared, with the value of £155, plus interest at 8%, plus court and legal fees totalling £259.62.

The usual inflated claim scam,   They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amounts for debt collection etc.. Judges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. Read this and complain to 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

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

KeithP

Pally86 said:

Umkomaas said:

Good research and you are definitely on track. 

A landowner complaint should be an important step to take, right now. 

4. AoS submitted through the MCOL website, also done following the helpful guide supplied on the forum.

If you can provide us with the Date of Issue shown on the claim form from the Northampton CCBC, and the date of your acknowledgment of service (AOS), forum regular @KeithP will be along with a timetable for you to follow and a number of key actions to move your defence forward. 

Ah yes, sorry I missed the date off the AoS, which was also today the 18 Oct 2021.

Claim Form date of issue is the 12 Oct 2021.

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 15th November 2021 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave 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.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Pally86

Hi all, quick update on progress so far.

I've had acknowledgement of my SAR from Group Nexus, with them giving  deadline for provision of the data of the 17/11/2021.

I've also had a response from DCBL stating that my case will not be placed on hold as that is a process for pre-action cases only according to 'Pre-Action Protocols 2017'. I did try to research these but didn't really know what I was looking for.

As the SAR return date is past the deadline for my Claim response, should I just do the best I can with the template defence for my version of events?

Or as D_P_Dance highlighted, is the main point of my defence the addition of doubling the fees and I assume failing to demonstrate any justification for their fees in the first palce?

Any and all help is very much appreciated!

Thank you.

KeithP

The response to your SAR will be far more useful at Witness Statement time.

Do not miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Pally86

OK, thanks for that KeithP. I'll share my paragraphs once I have completed them.

Redx

The core terms of the case or not affected by the spurious charges , so the Defence needs to concentrate on defending the PCN and court claim , the spurious charges are already mentioned in the defence template and you will elaborate at the WS stage in several months time !

It is rare to get a case struck out due to the spurious charges , because it doesn't address the PCN or the claim

So you must defend both , don't expect a miracle due to the debt collector fees or spurious charges

Pally86

Hi all, its been a busy period but I have put my paragraphs for the defence letter together, in addition to having visited the car park to take images of their signage as well as find some older images on the internet with date stamps closer to the date of the PCN, in case I need them during my witness statement.

Please see my paragraphs below.

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.

 

3.             It is not known who the driver of the vehicle was at the time and date of the alleged offense.

 

4.             The Defendant has received a Letter of Claim through the post, alleging an offense dating back over 3 years, at a new address for a vehicle which is no longer owned by the Defendant. The particulars of the claim fail to outline the nature of the alleged offense, nor does it provide any evidence to support the claim. Due to the duration of time that has elapsed since the alleged offense the Defendant does not have any recollection of using the parking facilities on the day in question.

 

5.             The Defendant has subsequently visited the location of the alleged offense, which upon entering the car park, was met with signage which was not lit and contains a range of text sizes making them difficult to read from within a vehicle. The signage also refers to other ‘signage within the car park for full terms and conditions’ without identifying their location, leaving the Defendant unable to determine what conditions they were supposedly agreeing to by using the parking facilities.

 

6.             The Defendant noted that some of the signage appeared to have been retrospectively updated, indicating that the parking charge for failing to comply with the various, poorly communicated and at times, barely visible conditions, was £100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. It has been determined that this amendment was an increase to the value of the parking charge values from £85 reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days, with the amendment taking place some time after the 19th January 2019.

Any and all feed back would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!