DCB Legal Highview Parking Claim

rose2807

Hello Everyone. Apologies if I come across as confused or unsure- It is because I most probably am  

I will run through the claim i have received and what i have done thus far;

Received claim from DCB Legal representing Highview Parking Limited dated 25th November, received 27th November. Claiming for 2 PCNs dated 08/09/2018 and 03/12/2018. They are demanding £280 for both PCNs (inflated from original parking charge £70 each!) 8% interest rate, £50 court fee and £50 legal rep costs so all equaling £446.12. This has been signed (commonly as i have seen) from Yasmin Mia. I did receive harassing notices for payment a while ago but nothing until i recieved this last week. I assume it was an overstay at Riverside Retail Park, but I cannot remember and other family members also have access to the car although I am the keeper. 

So far... I have done alot of reading, there are some great threads and you are all so knowledgeable!! 
I have read the Newbies thread (v. helpful) and emailed an SAR to Nexus, a email to DCB legal informing them of this, a email of complaint to the landowner and an email to my MP. 
I have done an AoS on MCOL today even though i am slightly confused by the dates, but if i've worked it out correctly I will have until 27/12/21 to submit defence. 
I have read up on PoFA (2012) and understand that my defence can include the fact that highview do not comply with keeper/driver liability. I have also started to edit the defence template posted on the newbies page that defends the increase (crazy increase in my case) of the original fines. 
I have read many defence templates, one from Redman which has been recommended a lot. 

My questions: 
- Am i correct in thinking I have until 27/12/21 to get my defence in? 
- I have had an email from Nexus saying that my data will be with me by 27/12/21 what shall I do if this isn't with me before i send my defence? 
- Are there any other threads/ defence templates i can read to do with keeper liability/ highview parking/ raised parking charges? 

Lastly, I read in one thread that saying you cannot afford to pay the charge is not a defence which i get and will not be putting in my defence. However, I am now training to be a Nurse, I have no income and actually all of this has given me such stress and worry that it definitely is affecting my studies. Would this be appropriate to put in a witness statement? I really don't understand how they've got to a figure of £280 for two PCNS and then 8% charge increasing it to £346.12. I know in one of the threads someone emailed DCB Legal for a breakdown of costs, shall I do this?

Many thanks in advanced. 

Fruitcake

Follow the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in the second post of the NEWBIES.
Use the template defence in the sticky Announcements, then amend paragraphs 2 and 3 to explain the type of car park, what happened, why the defendant isn't liable etcetera, then show us just the paragraphs you have amended.

Regular poster KeithP will probably be along soonly to confirm or correct your defence submission date, based on the claim issue date of 25/11/21, and you completing the AoS today, 01/12/21. You should have 28 days from date of AoS to submit your defence, but I don't think statutory holidays are included. Again, I'm sure KeithP will correct both me if I'm wrong.

Where do you think the alleged event happened? It may have cropped up here before. The response to your SAR will confirm it, but they will leave it to the last minute.

Fake costs have been added on. They should only claim 2 X PCNs at £100 plus permitted court costs, £275-£300 max.

You are right about Yasmin. She is a frequent flyer on this forum.

Non PoFA compliant NTK/no keeper liability is useful if the driver has not been identified, but doesn't help if the keeper was driving because you can't lie if the judge asks you, "Were you driving?"
The only answers you can truthfully give are: -
Yes, No, I don't know, but only if true. The latter is helpful if more than one person could have been driving.

KeithP

rose2807 said:

Received claim dated 25th November. 
I have done an AoS on MCOL today even though i am slightly confused by the dates, but if i've worked it out correctly I will have until 27/12/21 to submit defence.

- Am i correct in thinking I have until 27/12/21 to get my defence in? 

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 29th December 2021 to file your Defence. H.M. Courts Service is Closed on 27th and 28th December.

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'.

rose2807 said:

- I have had an email from Nexus saying that my data will be with me by 27/12/21 what shall I do if this isn't with me before i send my defence? 

The response to a SAR will be of more use at Witness Statement time.
As I said above, do not miss you Defence filing deadline.

rose2807

Thank you both. 

Fruitcake said:

Where do you think the alleged event happened? It may have cropped up here before. The response to your SAR will confirm it, but they will leave it to the last minute.

It was at riverside retail park in Norwich. 

Surprisingly they’ve got back to me with both of my PCNs. I will attach the most recent ones sent below.

I am worried because they have increased the amount here and they’ve cited the parking eye v beavis case. So is what they are doing in fact lawful? Even if I did owe £110 per PCN that wouldn’t equal the £346.12 without legal and court fees? 

A parent was insured on my car as was my partner. Having spoken to my mum we aren’t sure whether she was driving or myself on either of those occasions. 

Thanks again for your help, 

Fruitcake

The first one isn't a PCN, it's a final reminder where they have already added on a fake £40. You therefore have received two PCNs at £70 each. They can add on permitted legal fees of £25 filing fee, £50 solicitors' coats, and (sometimes) a £25 hearing fee. The latter is rarely claimed if the hearing is by 'phone or video.
In other words the maximum they should be claiming is £215.

All PPCs mention Beavis, so don't worry about it. It actually helps because the Supreme Court judges (and the PoFA 2012) says the PPC can't claim more than the original PCN amount. 

You need both original PCNs to check if they wew or were not PoFA compliant. The second one does not appear to be capable of holding a keeper liable because it doesn't mention the mandatory PoFA wording from para 9 of the Act, but you haven't shown all of page 2, so I can't be absolutely sure.

If you can confirm both PCNs are non PoFA compliant, and two people could have been driving, and you can't remember who was driving, then the claim should fail if properly defended.
The claimant has to prove on the balance of probabilities that the keeper was the driver. This has to be greater than 50%. Having two possible drivers means the probability cannot exceed 50%.

You should complain to the landowner, and your MP about this. You should also complain to Highview and the BPA that the NTK is misleading because it says you should name the driver. This is not true. There is no such requirement in the PoFA to do so. 
The PoFA says a PPC may invite the keeper to name the driver, but it is not obligatory, and the NTK should not be worded to imply that it is.

rose2807

Please find attached both pages of both PCNs. 

Thanks!

Fruitcake

Have a look on Google Streetview (GSV) and use the facility to view historical images to see if the signs are visible at the site from around the time of the alleged event. Parking contracts are formed by signage, so knowing what they say is crucial to both parties.

Fruitcake

I've just noticed the comment in red on the first reminder. This is a lie. Your ability to obtain credit can only be affected if you lost in court and didn't pay within the prescribed court mandated timescales.
Your ability to obtain credit cannot be affected by this being passed to solicitors.
That should also feature in all your completes.

Fruitcake

Riverside retail park, Norwich is a big place, and GSV images show ParkingEye signs present in 2018 in parts of it. Any chance you could be a bit more specific where the alleged event took place?
Near Boots perhaps?

This is the car park entrance sign next to Boots, taken in 2018. Note that there is no mention of fake add on debt collection fees.



In law, a contract must have an offer, and be accepted. The contract, the offer to the motorists to park, is displayed on the signs. There is no mention of additional charges or costs above that of the original £70 on the sign, therefore there is no contractual obligation or requirement to pay anything about the amount displayed on the sign.
In other words, any above that amount, except permitted court costs, is a fake add on that cannot be claimed.

patient_dream

Fruitcake said:

I've just noticed the comment in red on the first reminder. This is a lie. Your ability to obtain credit can only be affected if you lost in court and didn't pay within the prescribed court mandated timescales.
Your ability to obtain credit cannot be affected by this being passed to solicitors.
That should also feature in all your completes.

I agree, Highview clearly don't understand how the law works.
Plus they are very confused about the Beavis / Supreme Court case
The landmark case said that the parking charge covered the cost of operating the scheme.

FAKE ADD-ONS were not included in the landmark case, because the court ruled it was part of the charge

So thats the second lie they have told you ?

It is the poor behaviour of companies like Highview that the new code of practice will come into force

rose2807

Fruitcake said:

Riverside retail park, Norwich is a big place, and GSV images show ParkingEye signs present in 2018 in parts of it. Any chance you could be a bit more specific where the alleged event took place?
Near Boots perhaps?

This is the car park entrance sign next to Boots, taken in 2018. Note that there is no mention of fake add on debt collection fees.



In law, a contract must have an offer, and be accepted. The contract, the offer to the motorists to park, is displayed on the signs. There is no mention of additional charges or costs above that of the original £70 on the sign, therefore there is no contractual obligation or requirement to pay anything about the amount displayed on the sign.
In other words, any above that amount, except permitted court costs, is a fake add on that cannot be claimed.

Thank you for this!! 

If I’m honest I’m not 100% sure. But from the PCNs it looks more like the other car park where b&m and H&M are. I’ve had a look and I can’t see the sign very well because of the angle from the 2018 image(first image) have also attached the sign from 2017. (Second image) so looks like it doesn’t say anything about increased add ons either. So I will use that in my defence.