County Court Claim with Highview/DCB Legal

Mcmerta

Hi all

I have an County Court Claim form from the business center (Issue Date 09 Feb 2022) for 2 PCNs dating back to 2017

I have engulfed a vast amount of help from this site already, so I thank you for everything thats already posted here.

However, I have a couple points particular to my case which I was wondering whether they are worth putting as points of defence.

1: The PCN is for parking in a permit area. My first point on this is that when you first enter the car park in question, it is not a permit parking area and is the ususal limited amount of time allowed. It is until a certain point it turns into permit only parking, which is not clear at all on the car park as the parking is continuous with no barriers, gates, road markings. Only a sign which states Permit Parking beyond this point, with no clear marking of a "point". So surely if they imply of contractual parking and change this contract half way thru, is it not reasonable that this is confusing and easily took that the entrance of the car park notices are the ones to abide by.

2: They have the car entering the Permit Area on an ANPR camera and leaving, but no pictures or evidence of parking in this part. If my memory serves (before I get the original letters requested) the time witin the permit area was only a few mins, which leaves doubt whether the car was parked? It clearly states its Permit PARKING, no notice of No Access or anything else of the wording.

I can get photos of the notices and a google maps image of the car park layout uploaded if that helps.

Thanks for any support.

KeithP

Mcmerta said:

I have an County Court Claim form from the business center (Issue Date 09 Feb 2022)...

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th February, you have until Monday 28th February 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 March 2022 to file your Defence.

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 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'.

Mcmerta

Also to add to my points

3: The second NCP was issued for 21/12/2017, then shortly after I received one for 11/09/2017. I'm lead to believe that the one for September should be dismissed as it was well over 14 days for me to be notified? The car details were changed a year before so my details were correct. If my memory serves, the December one was sent within the 14 day period

Le_Kirk

The 14 days relates to whether or not they can hold the keeper liable.

Mcmerta

Hi all

I have done the AoS and sent a SAR request to Highview/Nexus. I have provided my details and a none invasive form of ID (a utility bill) to prove who I am.

They have replied with a form to fill out. In this form it asks for 3 forms of ID. A Driving Licence/Passport + Utility Bill + Confirmation from DVLA that I was the registered keeper at the time of the Parking Charge. I thought I only had to prove who I am for information on ME, surely whether I was registered keeper at the time or not isnt in question as the details are for myself.

It also asks the question "Were you the Driver at the Time of Incident"  Im guessing this a trap and should be ignored?

Thanks

Trainerman

That is very bad of them !

 Correct:- do  not answer that question ! Also , no to the driving licence and passport. They really are being very naughty children. I would send them a redacted copy of the V5, make sure I include a reference to the PCN number and tell them to get on with it !

Coupon-mad

It also asks the question "Were you the Driver at the Time of Incident"  Im guessing this a trap and should be ignored?

Yep, a well known trap.

Recently, I complained to the BPA about this because Steve Clark had declared that making a SAR conditional upon saying who was driving 'wrong on so many levels' but they didn't care when it was one of their own (I observe as an aside, that Group Nexus are on the BPA Board)

Mcmerta

Thanks all for the help.

I have drawn up my defence and adjusted point #3 from the template

3. The Claimant has issued the original penalty on the basis of passing a “Permit Holders Only" point, however, the signage that is indicated as the “Full Terms and Conditions” within the car park does not state anything at all about Permit Holding parking, therefore, the conditions of the parking on the issued dates were met, so the penalty should not of been issued. The signs are not clear and coherent about the condition of Permit Holding and the lack of separation of the car park to indicate of such (for example, no divide in the parking spaces, no lines on the road, no gated or barrier access) leaves for a reasonable assumption of no Permit Parking within the stated car park.

Any chance anyone could look this over and give an opinion? This is what I honestly believe is why I am fighting this

Mcmerta

These are the signs I am refering to in the point

Coupon-mad

I have, just the other day, re-drafted the template defence on the thread about JD Parking.  Go grab the newer version and be among the first to use it.

Can't recall which poster, but his name was four letters starting with 'e'.

Also, you need to improve your para 3 and add some more paragraphs because what you've told us on this thread is ten times clearer to set the scene than the wording you have in para 3 of your draft.  You haven't covered the facts about the car park, haven't explained that it is shared use, and didn't use the phrases we talked about, such as the bays not being marked or delineated to show which area is which. 

The Judge doesn't know which car park this is about or anything, so use your facts paragraphs to set the scene without saying who was driving.

By the way, my suggested (work in progress but early there) new draft template covers the POFA 2012 and puts Claimants to strict proof of POFA compliance if they are intending to rely upon 'keeper liability' so you won't need to add in something about the POFA as we normally used to advice in Highview cases (because it's already there in the new wording).

Mcmerta

This is what I've updated and amended, setting the scene for the judge.

3. The car park is located on Bradfield Road, Sheffield, S6 2BZ. The entrance and exit for vehicles is at the same point, no secondary entrance or exit. The car park is based within the Hillsborough area of Sheffield. According to Department for Transport (Dft) Bradfield Road is Road classification: 'A' road and road type “Major”. Source for this is manual counter site number 27821 on the Dft website.

4.Entrance to the site can be complicated by the busy road and passing pedestrians on the entrance/exit, where a good amount of concentration for the safety of public can be required. At the entrance of the car park, there is only 1 sign, viewable only by approaching the car park from Penistone Road, where in a typical car with the drivers side on the right, the car park would be on the passengers side. When approaching from the opposite direction, the sign can be easily passed as it is posted within a hedge which is also against a building.

5.The car park is open to the public with no barriers or restricted access at the entrance point. The car park also follows the building it is situated at, following it around the back of the building which accommodates shops. When entering the 1st part of the car park, signs are located within the car park which explains the terms and conditions of parking within the car park. These are time restrictions, disabled parking, no parking on yellow lines or hatched markings and for cars to be parked within the bays. At no point does the signs, which are the term and conditions for parking, states anything about “Permit Parking” on which this case is based upon.

6.It is admitted, when approaching the “rear” of the car park, there is a sign that states “Permit Holders Only Beyond This Point” but it also states “Please see signing within car park for full terms and conditions”. It does not state part terms and conditions or additional terms and conditions, but FULL terms and conditions of which parking is set. As my point above, the referred FULL terms and conditions does not state anything about permit parking. I feel in contractual law, something that is in full, is the final conditions set.

7.Once in the alleged Permit Area, there is no discernable markings in which the permit area has begun or which bays are permit only. The parking is continuos with no barriers or gates to separate the free parking with permit parking, no difference in bay marking or road markings to say otherwise. It would be reasonable, when entered the car park, established the full terms and conditions, then parked in the alledged permit bays, that there is no change in the terms of parking.

I appreciate any help on this, thanks