Highview Parking court papers

Recifegirl

Urgent advice needed - please.
I have an outstanding parking fine from Highview parking LTD from 2016.
I don't have a copy of the original parking ticket, although I do have a distant memory of appealing against one successfully (but this may be a separate ticket- I don't remember ever getting it though).
I ignored all the bailiff's letters etc but I did try to call HighView - they never answer.
So, last week I got a Claim Form from the Country Court Business Centre for £332.80 with a response pack dated 16th Feb 2022

What do I do please? A bit about me will help answer this question!
I am a parent of two kids with additional needs and I myself am autistic. This kind of thing sends me into a tail spin - it is causing me huge anxiety. 
The response pack looks like a swimming mess of words when I try to read it and I can't work out the best thing to do. I need to resolve it quickly but if I pay this then that's the holiday fund gone!

I'm usually capable and can handle stuff like this but even thinking about it is making me feel sick. 
Thanks for your help
Julie 

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 16th February (is that right?), you have until Monday 7th March to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

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

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 21st March 2022 to file your Defence.

That's three 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'.

D_P_Dance

t even thinking about it is making me feel sick. 

Why should this upset you?  Over 8 million such tickets are issued each year,  It is just partof our rip off Britain culture.  The have no hope of getting that sort of money, read thia and complain to your MP

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection.

This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and your MP,

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also this,

"Abuse of process – the quantum

13. In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum of £60 that is disingenuously described variously as 'debt collection costs', ‘additional charges levied to cover the cost of recovery’, ‘additional administration costs’, ‘debt recovery costs’, ‘initial legal costs’ and ‘recovery costs’. The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020 (the transcript of which is exhibit XX-04). The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued."

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/

Coupon-mad

You don't need to read nor use the Response Pack at all.  Just follow the step by step advice as shown by @KeithP

Recifegirl

thanks for the advice. Have done the AoS. Trying to write my defence and I am a bit lost on what to write (not sure which paras in the template provided here are relevant). Could someone help me please?
My defence is essentially that I have no recollection at all of getting the original parking charge which was supposedly in 2016 and I just got a load of bailiff letters in 2021 in the middle of a pandemic. I tried to contact Parkview but couldn't get through.
What do I need to add /take away from this please?
Thanks
Julie
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. I do not know if I was the driver of the vehicle on the day in question and no evidence has been provided by the claimant in relation to this information.

 

3.  The defendant has no records of having received a parking charge regarding the date in question. The first she heard about this parking charge was a series of  debt recovery letters that were sent to me throughout 2021, years after the date the claimant alleges the parking charge was incurred (01/06/2016). A constant bombardment of letters was extremely distressing, particularly as the defendant has no recollection of incurring this charge. The defendant tried to contact the claimant (Parkview) numerous times by telephone after receiving the debt collection letters, but  was only able to reach an automated payment line, each time she tried to make an enquiry it went through to an automated hold message and the phone would eventually go dead. This caused additional distress as the claimant is autistic and experiences high levels of anxiety related to any perceived infringement of rules or law. She attempted to mitigated this by making all reasonable attempts to contact the claimant by phone on multiple occasions. 

(Do I need to mention this here: the Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.)

 Which bits of the paras below should I use?

4.  The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon.  Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3.  That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA 2015') legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71.  The Defendant avers that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 in Sch2.  NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

5.       It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable.  The Defendant's position is that this moneyclaim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135.  Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper.  At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable.  ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' famous parking event.

6.       Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs - which is denied - they are attempting double recovery of the cost of their standard automated letter-chain.  It is denied that the Claimants have expended additional costs for the same letters that the Beavis case decision held were a justification for the (already increased from the discount) parking charge sum of £85.  

7.  The Claimant cannot be heard to base its charge on the Beavis case, then add damages for automated letter costs; not even if letters were issued by unregulated 'debt recovery' third parties.  It is known that parking firms have been misleading the courts with an appeal at Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case) where the Judge merely reset an almost undefended case back for a hearing.  He indicated to Judges for future cases, how to consider the CRA 2015 properly and he rightly remarked that the Beavis case was not one that included additional 'costs' per se, but he made no finding of fact about the illegality of adding the same 'automated letter costs' twice.  He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed.  It is averred that District Judge Grand's rationale remains sound, as long as a court has sufficient facts to properly consider the CRA 2015 s62, 63 and 67 before turning to consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch4 ('the POFA').

8.  Pursuant to Sch4 of the POFA at 4(5), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a parking firm has complied with its other requirements (denied in this case).  It is worth noting that even though the driver was known in Beavis, the Supreme Court considered the POFA, given that it was the only legislation specifically dealing with parking on private land.  There is now also the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 with a new, more robust and statutory Code of Practice being introduced shortly, which evolved because the two Trade Bodies have failed to properly govern this industry. 

In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

17.   (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance.  The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

18.   The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim. 

Coupon-mad

Why not just copy one of the hundreds of Highview ones from 2021, because you've missed the fact that Highview PCNs do not use the POFA 2012 and so they can't hold you liable as registered keeper.

There were dozens of Highview claim cases every month over the Summer.  They all nailed that point.

Search the forum, copy and adapt a defence after reading more than one (you will see the advice and explanations and they will help you).

Recifegirl

Coupon-mad said:

Why not just copy one of the hundreds of Highview ones from 2021, because you've missed the fact that Highview PCNs do not use the POFA 2012 and so they can't hold you liable as registered keeper.

There were dozens of Highview claim cases every month over the Summer.  They all nailed that point.

Search the forum, copy and adapt a defence after reading more than one (you will see the advice and explanations and they will help you).

Could you point me in the right direction please?
Thanks very much

Recifegirl

Help!
Hi everyone. I am completely lost with this - feel like giving up and paying on my credit card. I work full time and have 2 kids with additional needs and a lot of paperwork to constantly do for them. Can someone give me some very specific advice on what to write please? Thanks in advance

Trainerman

Hang on and breathe. If I remember correctly, you do not have to file defence for another week or so ???? If I am correct there is plenty of time, and people here will help. On a side issue, did you ever send a Subject Access Request to the parking company, in order to find out exactly what they have ??

Coupon-mad

Use the Template defence, I've just re-written it.  Top of the forum.

Recifegirl

Thanks. I've submitted my defence form and requested a SAR.
I want to send off the Directions Questionnaire - is there a template please? I can't find one. 
I have absolutely no idea if I am doing all this right- thanks
Julie