Court Claim Form from Highview Parking Ltd/DCB Legal

Gloobos

Hi all

As in the title I have received Court Claim Form from Highview Parking Ltd/DCB Legal.
I have read the **NEWBIES!! PRIVATE PARKING TICKET? OLD OR NEW? **READ THESE FAQS FIRST!** Thankyou! and I have filled out the Acknowledgment of Service today.
If I understand it correctly I have the time to send the defence until 14 of February ( 33 days from the issue date) is that correct?
Does it matter when I will do it? Should I do it as soon as possible or should I wait till let's say last two weeks? 
As advised in the newbie's post I will submit a defence by email to the CCBCAQ email address and I hope I can count on some advice when I will finish writing it. I will try my best but I'm not the best writer lol

When working on defence should I use this standard template - Suggested template defence to adapt for all parking charge cases where they add false admin costs by Coupon-mad or it would be better to rewrite a bit defence by robertcox999 from this post Court Claim received, need a little reassurance that I'm in the right direction ?

I just made myself a bit confused. Should I include the defendant's schedule of costs within the defence or was it in a witness statement?

Background Story

The PCN is dated 04/05/2019 and it has been taken at Beacon Retail Park Milton Keynes. This car park has a 3-hour free limit and it's operated by ANPR cameras. If I remember correctly we came there to buy some clothes and later we came back to return some unwanted ones ( edit: actually we came back because I have lost my phone and we came back to look for it). The PCN states that Time In:12:56 Time Out: 16:44 which is Duration 03:47:35 so the time in, is when we have entered for the first time and time out is when we left the car park last time although they stating this is one whole long duration.
Looking up the PCN number on their website they don't have any pictures available for this PCN. Picture below

Within defence should I also mention the signs? I have looked up this car park using google view and I can see that at the entrance there is no terms and conditions as the first sign states "please see signage within the car park for full terms and conditions". The rest of the signs within a car park are quite often faced with one direction meaning that if you are behind a sign you might not be aware that there are any signs at all because they are at a significant distance. When looking up by google view I have realised that there is one picture showing a period of time where there were no signs on the lamp posts at all. Can I use google view pictures to show all of that or should I go there to take some pictures? Not a preferable option for me as this is quite far but it can be done, not sure if there is any value in doing this.

What else should I include in my defence? Any advice will be aprecaited

Court Claim Form Details

Claimant = Highview Parking Limited

Legal Firm = DCB legal LTD

County Court Claim Letter Issue date = 12 January 2022

 

Particulars of the Claim

1.       The defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a parking Charge (s) issued to vehicle **** at Beacon Retail Park Milton Keynes.

2.       The PCN details are 04/05/2019, 2000010061782

3.       The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the terms on C’s signs (the contract), thus occurring the PCN(s).

4.       The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The contract entitles C to damages.

Claimant Claims

1.       £155 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages

2.       Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the county courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.0.02 until judgement or sooner payment

3.       Costs and court fees.

Amount Claimed	183.65
Court Fee	35
Legal representative's costs	50
Total Amount	268.65

KeithP

Gloobos said:

I have received Court Claim Form from Highview Parking Ltd/DCB Legal.

If I understand it correctly I have the time to send the defence until 14 of February ( 33 days from the issue date) is that correct?

County Court Claim Letter Issue date = 12 January 2022

You seem to have a good idea on how to approach this.

The following may help...

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th January, you have until Monday 31st January to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th February 2022 to file your Defence.

That's nearly 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.


Although nothing to do with parking, what happen with your other county court claim? 
There are still unanswered questions on that thread.

Le_Kirk

I just made myself a bit confused. Should I include the defendant's schedule of costs within the defence or was it in a witness statement?

As @KeithP writes, you are going the right way, you are also correct that nothing goes with a defence, save all that for the witness statement (WS) stage.  From your story, it seems like a case of "double dipping" (forum speak) where the ANPR camera captured your first entry and your second exit but decided to completely ignore your first exit and second entrance - I wonder why they would do that.  It will form a good part of your defence (in bullet point) and then expanded upon in your WS.

D_P_Dance

It is called "double dipping" and is very common with ANPR, read these and complain to your MP

https://metro.co.uk/2021/10/18/surrey-writing-on-womans-jumper-landed-couple-with-fine-when-she-walked-in-bus-lane-15439916/

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5550336/double-dip-parking-list-of-cases 

Gloobos

Hi all

That's my best attempt at writing the defence.
I would be grateful for the feedback and help with editing it to make it suitable to use in my case.

2. It is admitted that Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but the liability is denied, and any breach of terms is also denied. 

3. The defendant entered the Claimants Car Park on the 4th of May 2019 around 1 pm at Beacon Retail Park Milton Keynes. On the entry to the car park, there is a sign stating to look for full terms and conditions but it's hard to read a whole sign as the entrance to the car park is from a busy single track road where stopping is impossible due to heavy traffic.

4. After finding a parking place, Defendant tried to find the nearest sign showing full terms and conditions as there was none available in the place where Defendant parked. Defendant tried to understand the confusing terms and conditions on several signages as none of them stated the full terms and conditions.

5. The Claimant’s signs have been located on the lamp post about two metres above the ground with vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void according to Schedule 2 of the CRA. Consequently, it is Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was agreed by the driver.

6. After walking around the car park and investigating signs for about 5 - 10 minutes, Defendant wasn’t able to fully understand terms and conditions because some of the fonts were too small and signs too high to be able to read it properly.

7. Defendant visited T K Max store and left it after 20 – 30 min. Defendant left Claimants car park on 4th of May 2019 at Beacon Retail Park Milton Keynes no later than 1:45 pm as Defendant had pre-booked cinema tickets for 2 pm.

8. After the movie, the defendant realised that he lost his mobile phone. After an unsuccessful search around the theatre, Defendant headed back to Claimants Car Park at Beacon Retail Park.

9. Defendant entered the Claimants Car Park on 4th of May 2019 around 4 pm at Beacon Retail Park Milton Keynes for the second time.

10. After an initial search of the area where Defendant left his car for the first time. Defendant headed to the T K max store to check with customer service for the lost mobile phone.

11. Defendant successfully managed to retrieve his lost mobile phone from the customer service and left Claimants car park immediately around 4:45 pm

12. Defendant received County Court Claim Form issued on 12 January 2022 that defendant is indebted to the Claimant for a Parking Charges issued to Defendant. Claimant states that Defendants vehicle was parked in breach of terms on Claimants signs, thus incurring the PCN number 2000010061782. The claimant doesn’t state which terms Defendant was in breach of and doesn’t provide any photographic evidence of Defendant being in breach of any terms.

13. PCN ticked number 2000010061782 has been logged by the Claimant on their website stating that the defendants vehicle entered the car park at 12:56 and left it at 16:44 stating that it was one long stay of 3 hours and 47 minutes. There is no photographic evidence of what car has been logged to this PCN and there is no photographic evidence of what time the car entered the car park and what time the car left the car park.

14. Claimants car park is managed by ANPR cameras which are well known to not be completely accurate and due to its lack of accuracy it is well known that ANPR cameras may miss pictures of cars that make multiple visits to the same car park but the system believes it is one long stay thus overstay is recorded.

15. In this case defendant visited the claimant's car park on two separate occasions hence no breach of overstay has occurred and the Claimant has no reasonable cause to access the defendant's data which means that the defendant's data has been misused and the data protection act has been breached by the Claimant.

Ps. All other paragraphs will be renumerated including paragraph 7 which has a link with paragraph 5

Le_Kirk

That is too long for a defence and most of it should be saved for the witness statement (WS).  Keep the defence short using punchy, legal/technical arguments which you then later back up in your WS with evidence.

Coupon-mad

I like the points you make about ANPR but try to be more concise about the 2 trips.  'There was no breach.  The Defendant had cause to visit this car park twice in one day. The car was not there for the duration. The Claimant failed to carry out mandatory human checks of images and should never have obtained the DVLA data nor issued a charge at all'.

No need to talk about looking for signage (at all). 

Gloobos

Le_Kirk said:

That is too long for a defence and most of it should be saved for the witness statement (WS).  Keep the defence short using punchy, legal/technical arguments which you then later back up in your WS with evidence.

Thanks for the feedback but if I could do punchy legal/ technical arguments then I would do that the first time 
I just struggle to word it to make it punchy legal and technical 

Coupon-mad

ok, I am not concise either but I told you how to word it now!

Le_Kirk

Have a read of some of the other defences you will find on the forum and copy them for style and format.  There have been some posted only yesterday and today.  Your defence only needs to refute what the claimant claims on the POC; for example, if it says you didn't pay, you say you did pay; if it states you didn't display a ticket, you aver that you did; if it states no permit, you state there was one etc.  All this is then backed up by a longer narrative in the witness statement.  Look at what @Coupon-mad wrote above, that is fairly succinct!  Leave in your points about ANPR.

Gloobos

Coupon-mad said:

ok, I am not concise either but I told you how to word it now!

So how about now?

2. It is admitted that Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but the liability is denied, and any breach of terms is also denied. 

3. Defendant received County Court Claim Form issued on 12 January 2022 that defendant is indebted to the Claimant for a Parking Charges issued to Defendant. Claimant states that Defendants vehicle was parked in breach of terms on Claimants signs, thus incurring the PCN number 2000010061782. The claimant doesn’t state which terms Defendant was in breach of and doesn’t provide any photographic evidence of Defendant being in breach of any terms.

4. PCN ticked number 2000010061782 has been logged by the Claimant on their website stating that the defendants vehicle entered the car park at 12:56 and left it at 16:44 stating that it was one long stay of 3 hours and 47 minutes. There is no photographic evidence of what car or what number plate has been logged to this PCN and there is no photographic evidence of what time the car entered the car park and what time the car left the car park.

5. The defendant entered the Claimants Car Park on the 4th of May 2019 at Beacon Retail Park Milton Keynes twice in one day. There was no breach, that Defendant had caused. The car was not there for the whole duration. The Claimant failed to carry out mandatory human checks of images and should never have obtained the DVLA data nor issued a charge at all. Defendant's data has been misused and the data protection act has been breached by the Claimant.

6. Claimants car park is managed by ANPR cameras which are well known to not be completely accurate and due to its lack of accuracy it is well known that ANPR cameras may miss pictures of cars that make multiple visits to the same car park but the system believes it is one long stay thus overstay is recorded.