DCB Legal Highview Parking Claim

rose2807

Also to be clear- 

in my defence I can use the fact that they have cited the beavis case but actually have continued to add on unlawful amounts to the original charge? And also the fact that they said my credit will be affected if I don’t respond? Both showing them to have lied? 

Thanks again 

rose2807

rose2807 said:

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. 
 

My apologies. 

First image 2017
Second image 2018

Fruitcake

rose2807 said:

Also to be clear- 

in my defence I can use the fact that they have cited the beavis case but actually have continued to add on unlawful amounts to the original charge? And also the fact that they said my credit will be affected if I don’t respond? Both showing them to have lied? 

Thanks again 

Fake add on costs are mentioned in the template defence, and the fact that both the Beavis case and the PoFA state additional charges cannot be claimed means there is no need to mention it again from that standpoint. However, showing a judge that their threatogrammes were deliberately misleading, which is a breach of the BPA's CoP won't hurt. (Make sure you use the correct version of the CoP that covers Dec 2018.) 

The two misleading comments should be included in complaints to everyone concerned, including the landowner/retail park management company.

Note that images of signs go in at the witness statement/exhibits stage, not in the defence, but the fact that there are images of signs from 2018 showing no additional charges mentioned on the signs should be included, and therefore they cannot have formed part of the contract to park.

It doesn't mastter precidely where the car was parked for now. What is important that the signs above are at the entrance to the parking area where the alleged event occurred. 
ANPR would have been used, so the PPC has no idea where within the car park the car was actually parked.

Also look at grace periods from the relevant CoP. ANPR only records time on site, not how long a car is parked. It takes a finite time to get from the car park entrance, drive around, find a space, then park. Similarly it takes a finite time to do the reverse when leaving. None of that time is parking time, so have rough guess and work out both additional times, then see what the CoP says about grace periods (note the plural) for arriving and leaving in case that exceeds the 12 minutes alleged overstay.

BPA_AOS_code_of_practice_version_7_January_2018.pdf (britishparking.co.uk)

If an occupant of the car had a disability, then the Equality Act 2010 comes into play as that person may have needed more time to get from and to the car.

Fruitcake

I believe that Paras 13.2 and 13.4 of the CoP V7 apply.

The alleged overstays were 11 and 12 minutes respectively for the two PCNs.

Coupon-mad

rose2807 said:

Also to be clear- 

in my defence I can use the fact that they have cited the beavis case but actually have continued to add on unlawful amounts to the original charge? And also the fact that they said my credit will be affected if I don’t respond? Both showing them to have lied? 

No.  That's not part of a defence against the alleged contract.

The template defence already deals with the Beavis case and the fake charge. 

The template defence tells you what sort of fact to add at paragraphs 2 and 3 and any other Highview defence thread will show you exactly what to put about there being more than one driver who used that retail park, and that HIghview do not use the POFA Schedule 4 provisions for keeper liability.

This has been covered dozens of times this year, including a whole batch of Highview claims in May. 

Search, read, and copy.  No links (we can't find them any quicker than you can).  Easy as pie to defend.  Same as all the other HIghview ones, no need to look for new answers when it's all already here. 

No need to mention Beavis or the stuff the template already has covered for you.

D_P_Dance

They add £2.50 . for a; payment by cheques or P)O. is this legal?  If not complain to Trading Standards.  Have you complained to your MP?

rose2807

 Sorry for my delay in this thread. Please could my edited paragraphs be checked and any advice would be greatly appreciated. I had a look at grace periods, the PCN states the driver of the vehicle was 11 and 12 minutes over on both occasions, would this go in my defence below or my witness statement? 

Thank you in advanced.

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. 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 or was not driving on the dates stated in the claim over three 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 £446.12 (inclusive of £50 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). Through research the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to two PCN’s that were issued against the Defendant’s vehicle xxxx-yyy over 3 years ago on 9th September 2018 and 3rd December 2018 at Riverside Retail Park, Norwich.

 

4.     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 or was not driving on two random dates over 3 years ago.

 

5.     The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the PoFA, Schedule 4.

 

6.     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, 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.

 

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).

 

8.   Furthermore, the Claimant has 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. Through individual research it is now known that the signage in the car park does not state there would be additional parking charges added. Clearly, the signage in Riverside Retail Park is deliberately misleading which is an identifiable breach of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 20.5 and 20.6. Whereby it states that no charge would be expected to be over £100 and ‘If it is more than the amount in Clause 20.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to an investigation by Trading Standards or another appropriate authority’ (BPA, Code of Practice, 2020). Thus, leads to the question, how does the Claimant arrive at the extortionate amount claimed for; a total of £346.12. The Defendant has excluded the £50 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

Redx

4 is the same as 2 , duplicated !

Coupon-mad

4 isn't needed as it just repeats 2.

rose2807

Sorry, I have removed this paragraph now.