Highview Parking/DCB Legal County Court Claim

MissUltraViolet

Update - 

Recieved the following with my SAR response from Nexus - 

"We can confirm that your name and address details, along with details of the outstanding Charge, were passed to Debt Recovery Plus Ltd and Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd who are our Collection Agents on the 10/02/2017 and 12/03/2020 respectively for the purposes of recovering the outstanding amount on the Charge."

Should I be contacting them also? Although I can't think of anything they could show me that may help.

Nexus sent me three copies of letters/invoices they have sent me. 
Charge notice on the 8th Dec 2016
Charge notice reminder on the 29th Dec 2016
Charge notice legal action pending on the 16th Jan 2017.

The letters are all pretty much the same and show a picture of my car entering at 9:59am and another of it sitting at the junction waiting to leave at 10:18 with the following content - 

Coupon-mad

No need to contact the DRA aggressive thugs, no.

Highview NTKs are always non-POFA and the easy giveaway is the lack of warning of keeper liability, as per 9(2)f of Schedule 4. 

Coupon-mad

It's a difficult position to say that a car was in a retail park for 17 minutes but didn't park, and that a passenger hopped out to read the signs whilst you circled.  I take what you are saying there at face value but I'm not sure it's believable on the balance of probabilities and you'll get a hard time from most Judges.

Are you sure, or has it been suggested elsewhere that 'I was there but I never parked' is a good defence (because it isn't really).  I have never in 15 years doing this, seen a case where a driver told a passenger to get out and read signs whilst they circled round and round, except in cases where the car left within 5 mins.

Why aren't you just copying the usual Highview defences about the POFA and lack of keeper liability, as I advised was the usual approach, above?  Loads of Highview defences here this month that just take a bit of looking back through the thread titles to find.

MissUltraViolet

Thank you for the advice. It's all very overwhelming and despite reading and re-reading most of it goes straight over my head! I have no idea what a judge will think as I have never been to court before. I've looked back through some older threads, would something like this work better?

3. 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.

4. Where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in 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. Not only does the POC include this misleading untruth, but the Claimant has also 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, because it cannot have been over £100. Which then leads to the question of how they arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £330.52 (The Defendant has included the £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs for the purposes of this defence point).

Coupon-mad

Yes that is the POFA part, but you've missed out what most Highview thread posters put, as the required edit to point #2, about the fact this is an accusation from almost 6 years ago.

There is also nothing to tell the Judge what sort of car park this is (local retail park or whatever).  The keeper should set the scene as far as possible.

Are you now dropping the idea that the driver circled for 17 mins? (they didn't, surely...).  Hope that's been dropped as an idea, especially as this was so many years ago how on earth would someone remember?

MissUltraViolet

I know very little about law and I wouldn't consider myself to be a particularly smart person but I am definitely smart enough to know I should absolutely be following the advice from you and the other posters lol. That idea is gone, you're correct, it's hard to remember details from almost 6 years ago.

I will type out part 2 in the morning. I am bound to get something right at some point in this process, I hope!

Coupon-mad

You have got most of it right now, we just want to help you perfect it.

MissUltraViolet

Alrighty, attempt number 2.
I mentioned that it was a retail park but not sure whether any further details/something more specific would be required at this stage (such as the name or location etc?) The family members part is also true, a couple of people in the family were insured to drive the car and did so often, is that worth mentioning as I have done? As always, advice very welcome!

2. Through research the Defendant has come to understand the PCN relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle XXXX XXX, over 5 years ago on XX MMM 2016 for parking in a retail car park. 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. A number of family members were insured to drive the vehicle in question therefore the Defendant is unable to recall who was driving on that unremarkable day over 5 years ago.

3. 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.

4. Where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in 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. Not only does the POC include this misleading untruth, but the Claimant has also 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, because it cannot have been over £100. Which then leads to the question of how they arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £330.52 (The Defendant has included the £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs for the purposes of this defence point).

Coupon-mad

Yes that's all good.  I think you've missed the end of the usual sentence between this:

4. Where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in PoFA, 

and this:

Claimant has included a clear falsehood...

MissUltraViolet

I don't know what I've missed. I've spent all evening reading endless threads and other defences and I can't work it out or find anything different to what I have done.

My brain is frazzled and I'm already panicking about having to tackle the WS next!