DCB Legal Highview Parking Claim

rose2807

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.     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.

 

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, 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

rose2807

I have just realised (think i have got confused) ive used the BPA code of practice 2020. I should use the code of practice from 2018 shouldn't i? It was updated start of 2018 and then 2020. 

It wont make a difference to my point- the two clauses are still the same in both years. 

Coupon-mad

Yes use the CoP from the date of parking event.

I don't think you need 8 at all.

rose2807

Ok, even though 8 backs up the fact that the claimant has added on an absolutely crazy amount? 

I feel like my first few paragraphs are quite lets say sparse in terms of defence compared to others ive read... but i do not remember who was driving on those days 3 years ago so i can't really say anything else? 

shall i include about grace periods? thanks in advanced

Redx

As above , remove 8 , adjust it to the correct version and year , save it for the witness statement

rose2807

Have also added a great point by yourself @Coupon-mad that I had saved from another thread- does it flow ok? I will attach below. (& I have removed 8, thanks both)

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.     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. The Claimant has never used the provisions of Schedule 4 (paragraph 9) and can never rely on 'keeper liability' by the Claimant's own choice of business model.  In the event that the Claimant attempts to use or refer to the POFA 2012 in their witness statement or at a hearing - knowing as they do that, they do not comply with paragraph 9 of the Schedule - the Defendant will argue that the Dammerman test for unreasonable conduct has been reached and will seek full costs

 

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, 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).

Coupon-mad

Yes that is much better.  The added false costs are more than covered later in the template anyway.

rose2807

Fantastic, thank you for your help- i really appreciate it. 

Am I able to send with an electronic signature? or do I have to print sign and scan in? (I don't have a printer that is why I ask the question)

Umkomaas

rose2807 said:

Fantastic, thank you for your help- i really appreciate it. 

Am I able to send with an electronic signature? or do I have to print sign and scan in? (I don't have a printer that is why I ask the question)

Sign a blank sheet of white paper, scan/photograph the signature, save it, then insert it in the document as a picture between the Statement of Truth and your name. Squeeze or stretch to fit. 

Simples!

rose2807

Umkomaas said:

rose2807 said:

Fantastic, thank you for your help- i really appreciate it. 

Am I able to send with an electronic signature? or do I have to print sign and scan in? (I don't have a printer that is why I ask the question)

Sign a blank sheet of white paper, scan/photograph the signature, save it, then insert it in the document as a picture between the Statement of Truth and your name. Squeeze or stretch to fit. 

Simples!

Brilliant idea- thanks!!