HighView County Court Claim

bekki800

Hi, I have a pending county court claim from Highview Parking. It relates to 2 PCN's from 2019. I have read and followed the newbies thread which has been a life saver! I am however just at the point of filing my defence and would be grateful if someone could look over it for me PLEASE!!!! I have read many of the threads relating to this company but still find it quite daunting having no experience in this area.
I have used the defence template, obviously amending the correct paragraphs (I have omitted the remaining paragraphs merely for the purpose of this thread they will be included when filed)

Should I make more of the fact the requests for CPR31.14. have been ignored?
I have also seen other defences mention no reference to the creditor which I believe is also true of my case, but as I don't fully understand I haven't mentioned in my defence

Any help or guidance would be hugely appreciated!!

____________________

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 £503.36 (inclusive of £50 Court Fee & £50.00 Legal representative’s costs). Through research the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to two Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) that have been issued against the Defendants vehicle 17/08/19 and 11/12/19 at Bradfield Road Car Park S6 2BW

2.1 It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question however liability is denied.

2.2 In reference PCN dated 17/08/19 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 this day as this was some time ago. 

2.3 The Defendant believes she was the driver of the vehicle on 11/12/19 however disputes liability on this occasion. The car was not parked in the car park permit only section which the claimant refers to in the documents received in the Subject Access Request. A donation was made to a charity shop whose delivery doors open onto the area in question. At no point was the car left unattended during the unloading/loading.

3. The Defendant as the then registered keeper of the vehicle in question notes that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), Schedule 4.

3.1 It is the defendant's belief that no communication was made in relation to these parking charges from the claimant, instead the defendant was to later receive a bombardment of threatening debt recovery letters which were considered to be fraudulent hence the reason they were not acted upon.

3.2 It is also important to note the claimant has failed to comply with CPR31.14. Disclosure and Inspection of Documents despite two requests on 19 January 2022 and again on 9th February 2022 whereby the following documents were requested.

3.2a The contract between Highview Parking Limited and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name.

3.2b Copies of the notice to driver, notice to keeper and any other correspondence from Highview Parking Limited and DCB Legal Ltd to the defendant that they intend to rely upon in court.

3.2c Confirmation that the driver agreed to pay alleged PCN within 28 days

3.2d The terms of the contract which the Claimant alleges have been breached.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

bekki800

The issue date is  12 Jan.
Yes I filed the acknowledgement of service on 19/01
My defence is due Monday, I'm just having last minute jitters!

KeithP

bekki800 said:

The issue date is  12 Jan.
Yes I filed the acknowledgement of service on 19/01
My defence is due Monday, I'm just having last minute jitters!

Yes, you are right with your Defence filing deadline, but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th February 2022 to file your Defence.

Just a few days to go.

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'.

bekki800

Thankyou @KeithP!  It's my intention to email my defence this weekend to meet the deadline.
It was mainly the content of my defence which I am panicking about and if I have missed any key points which could end up costing me.

KeithP

bekki800 said:

Thankyou @KeithP!  It's my intention to email my defence this weekend to meet the deadline.

We have recently seen several cases where the CCBC have failed to properly receive Defences filed outside working hours.

Yes, by all means file your Defence over the weekend, but please do ensure you get an automated email receipt by return.

If you don't get that automated receipt, then I suggest you send the Defence email again during working hours on Monday.

Umkomaas

Should I make more of the fact the requests for CPR31.14. have been ignored?

3.2 It is also important to note the claimant has failed to comply with CPR31.14. Disclosure and Inspection of Documents despite two requests on 19 January 2022 and again on 9th February 2022 whereby the following documents were requested.

Scope of this Part

31.1

(1) This Part sets out rules about the disclosure and inspection of documents.

(2) This Part applies to all claims except a claim on the small claims track.

bekki800

Thankyou @Umkomaas

1505grandad

"2.2 In reference PCN dated 17/08/19 The identity of the driver at the material time is unknown to the Defendant."

But you contradict the above:-

"2.3 The Defendant believes she was the driver of the vehicle on 11/12/19 however disputes liability on this occasion"

bekki800

@1505grandad they are 2 separate PCNs one of which I don't know who was driving the other I know that I was.
 

Fruitcake

3. The Defendant as the then registered keeper of the vehicle in question notes that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), Schedule 4.

But the defendant can be held liable for the PCN where they admit to being the driver. You would need to split out the two PCNs if you want to use that defence point. Even then, the judge might still decide on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was the driver on both occasions.

For the loading/unloading PCN I suggest you refer to the Jopson vs Homeguard case where the judge stated that loading/unloading is not parking. The transcript is available online for you to read and understand, and include the transcript at the WS stage. This was an appeal court case so it it persuasive on the lowers courts.
If that was the one where the driver's identity is known, then I suggest you specify that and admit to being the driver in that specific instance only, but either deny being the driver or state the driver's identity is unknown for the other PCN, but state that other people have access to the vehicle.

Don't use sub paragraphs. Para 2 should possibly read,
The defendant was the keeper and driver for PCN number A dated X, but liability is denied.
The defendant was the keeper for PCN number B, dated Y, but does not know who was driving, and liability is denied.