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

Pally86

Understood.

I'll get back to reading.

Cheers.

D_P_Dance

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

Also read this

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

Pally86

I did a few hours reading focused on the recent Highview cases after the comments last night so thanks for the prompts.

I plan on incorporating the Defences that use the NtK not being PoFA compliant as with all Highview cases into the standard Defence template, amended to suit my situation as I understand it.

I'll be working on it later this evening so I'll share what I come up with.

Thank you all for your patience!

Cheers.

Pally86

Right, I believe that I am now ready to share my revised and hopefully more in line with expectations draft Defence.

Any and all feedback and critique will be gratefully  welcomed, I'm not sure if point 3 is too vague, but I can't remember that trip in particular and have checked bank statements but nothing for that date. The car park is adjacent to a couple of restaurants and shops, both of which I regularly visit, but could have paid cash or a friend / family member may also have paid.
  
For point 7, I have images from the internet from Jan 2019 which show signage with a max £85 charge, hence me including this value.

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.

 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 £259.62 (inclusive of £35 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 over 3 years ago on the 30th June 2018 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.

4.             The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protections of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the PoFA 2012 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 the PoFA, the Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their Particulars of Claim (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, as with any Group Nexus company, have never used the PoFA 2012 wording, of their own volition.

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).

7.             Not only do the PoC include this misleading untruth highlighted in [5], but the Claimant has also added an unidentified sum in false 'damages' to enhance the claim.  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 on the date in question, because it cannot have been over £85, as indicated on the signage shortly after the date of the alleged contravention. This then brings into question, how the Claimant has arrived at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £174.62. The Defendant has excluded the £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

 8.          Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms.....into the rest of the standard template Defence.

I really do appreciate the time and effort that you are taking to help.

Cheers!

Edit, I don't know why there are null links in...text copied in from a word document.

Coupon-mad

I think I would add to 3: 

In the absence of any evidence, any breach of a relevant obligation or relevant contract is denied.

Pally86

Coupon-mad said:

I think I would add to 3: 

In the absence of any evidence, any breach of a relevant obligation or relevant contract is denied.

Thanks for the input, I have added your suggested wording.

I have just had the SAR back from GroupNexus, which only includes a more recent PCN (July 2021) which I am trying to get cancelled by the restaurant I was visiting at the time. I'll be revisiting the Newbies thread for further guidance on this one.

I have again requested any and all information from them and referenced the particular PCN number that is on the claim form.

Is this something that happens regularly (SAR response not having the PCN being claimed for)? 

Cheers.

Edit: maybe it is because they have misspelt my name in the original PCN and then subsequently the claim form?

Redx

Reply and tell them that the SAR is incomplete and you require any other information that pertains to you , seeing as there is a current court claim against you and it's not about the documents they already provided , but earlier documents , give them 7 days to reply too , not one month

Assume that they are idiot's and act accordingly 😜😜👍👍

Pally86

Pally86 said:

Right, I believe that I am now ready to share my revised and hopefully more in line with expectations draft Defence.

Any and all feedback and critique will be gratefully  welcomed, I'm not sure if point 3 is too vague, but I can't remember that trip in particular and have checked bank statements but nothing for that date. The car park is adjacent to a couple of restaurants and shops, both of which I regularly visit, but could have paid cash or a friend / family member may also have paid.
  
For point 7, I have images from the internet from Jan 2019 which show signage with a max £85 charge, hence me including this value.

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.

 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 £259.62 (inclusive of £35 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 over 3 years ago on the 30th June 2018 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.

4.             The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protections of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the PoFA 2012 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 the PoFA, the Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their Particulars of Claim (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, as with any Group Nexus company, have never used the PoFA 2012 wording, of their own volition.

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).

7.             Not only do the PoC include this misleading untruth highlighted in [5], but the Claimant has also added an unidentified sum in false 'damages' to enhance the claim.  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 on the date in question, because it cannot have been over £85, as indicated on the signage shortly after the date of the alleged contravention. This then brings into question, how the Claimant has arrived at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £174.62. The Defendant has excluded the £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

 8.          Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms.....into the rest of the standard template Defence.

I really do appreciate the time and effort that you are taking to help.

Cheers!

Edit, I don't know why there are null links in...text copied in from a word document.

As there haven't been any other suggestions made since Coupon-mad's which I have added, am I safe to consider my draft Defence acceptable?

I'm planning on submitting it Wednesday/Thursday this week if no one thinks I need to add anything else.

Thanks.

1505grandad

Observation:-

" Protection(s) of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012"  -  no "s" on the end

Pally86

I've submitted my Defence today to the email address Coupon-mad posted in the template Defence thread. I'll be monitoring my case for updates on MCOL over the coming days.

Thank you all for your assistance, I'll be prepping for my next steps with some further reading.

Cheers!