Highview Parking/DCB Legal County Court Claim

Le_Kirk

That should do you on both counts, no need for postal as well.

MissUltraViolet

Latest update but not much to report! Keep checking MCOL and nothing has happened since my defence was submitted and no contact from DCB Legal up until today when this arrived, presumably I just ignore them? (I left out the page that gave me all my payment options)

Not sure why they think I would tell them WHY anyone has ever driven my car before or why it is relevant lol. Also don't know why they think I would have any insurance docs for a car that was sold 5 years ago either, or why that is even important considering most people with fully comp could legally drive my car at the time without being named on my insurance. Ah well, the fun continues.

Coupon-mad

Respond and show them:

- the Impact Assessment of the POFA 2012 Section 56 (Google it and read it - this confirms the Govt considered and outright rejected the option to oblige a keeper to name a driver to a private firm) and

- Excel v Smith (appeal) transcript that you will be using in evidence (see Parking Prankster's case law) and

- the POPLA Annual Report 2015, that you will also exhibit, should their client proceed, specifically drawing their attention to the section headed KEEPER LIABILITY by parking law expert barrister Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, and

- the paragraph from the new statutory Code of Practice that says operators must not assume/imply that a keeper was the driver.

Point out that no PPC is entitled to 'demand' the name & address of the driver nor use a refusal against them.  The NTK invited the keeper to name the driver (which is allowed) but was clearly a non-POFA notice, so the keeper had no need to respond.

A registered keeper is perfectly entitled to deny liability is a professional AOS member can't be bothered to use the POFA, unlike most others in the BPA who do choose to use the law that allows for 'keeper liability' under certain circumstances.

MissUltraViolet

That sounds a lot better than ignoring them, you're so good at this! Thank you.

I will get on it ASAP. Would you recommend posting it via the post office and getting proof for future records?

Coupon-mad

Never.  That would be LOADS of printing, unnecessary and they might well not sign for it, then all you'd have is proof of non-delivery.

Email it, with working links to what I said.

You can then use your email in evidence later, attached to your WS, to show you engaged nice and early and tried to resolve the dispute due to the claim against the keeper being fatally flawed.

MissUltraViolet

Okay, Saturday evening not the best time to start this and I am being a pain I know but can I just check that this - https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/impact-assessments/IA12-004F.pdf is what I should be reading through and trying to understand (ahhh!)  in regards to the 'Impact Assessment of the POFA 2012 Section 56'?

patient_dream

The DCBL letter is probably the biggest load of tosh we have seen so far.

As Coupon-mad says above

You can either respond or reply with your own questions which you will show in court

1: There is no obligation to name any driver
2: DCBL are not entitled to personal information
3: On the subject of "contempt of court", why do DCBL sign a statement of truth claiming an added amount that has no legal authority which can only be seen as a feeble attempt of double recovery.  Especially as the Government bans such add-ons.  You reserve the right to cross question the claimant

This is a desperation letter from an industry which is flawed and that letter must be seen as rubbish and should be sent to the SRA and your MP.

If this is the method DCBL will be using to go against the new code of practice, they are sadly mistaken and will result in even more spankings in court for them.

Maybe DCBL think that county court judges are stupid ???

Coupon-mad

the 'Impact Assessment of the POFA 2012 Section 56'?

You found it (specifically the keeper liability IMPACT ASSESSMENT, nothing else) and read what the Government's options were about keeper liability and that they outright rejected what I said they did?

MissUltraViolet

Alright, I have given it a go. Please tell me what I have done wrong/should change before I email it over. Hopefully all my links go to the correct places!

Re:

Your client – Highview Parking Ltd

Claim number -

I am writing in regards to the letter you sent me dated 29th April 2022 Please find my response to your questions/points below.

1. May I draw your attention to the following -

- The Impact Assessment of the POFA 2012 Section 56 in which the Government considered and outright rejected the option to oblige a keeper to name a driver to a private firm.

https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/impact-assessments/IA12-004F.pdf

-Also, please see the Excel V Smith transcript that will be used in evidence - http://nebula.wsimg.com/87cdd1ece93beeb2f058693b81e4d057?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

- The POPLA Annual Report 2015, that I will also exhibit, should your client proceed. Specifically the section headed KEEPER LIABILITY by parking law expert barrister Lead Adjudicator Henry Greenslade. https://assets.ctfassets.net/jsycjdw1p8kq/4n15qChCWmYyvpPo9fPyDo/9c1f276a1d3d848679636c6304070936/popla_finalreportleadadjudicator_2015.pdf

- The following paragraph from the new statutory Code of Practice -

Whilst the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 allow parking operators to issue a notice of parking charge to a vehicle keeper or vehicle-hire firm, operators must not when issuing or pursuing a notice of parking charge presume that the keeper of a vehicle was the driver at the time of that vehicle breaching conditions leading to issue of a notice of parking charge. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

- No private parking company is entitled to ‘demand’ the name and address of the driver nor use a refusal against them. The Notice To Keeper invited the keeper to name the driver but was clearly a non-POFA notice so the keeper had no need to respond. A registered keeper is perfectly entitled to deny liability if a professional AOS member cannot be bothered to use the POFA.

2. DCB Legal are not entitled to personal information, such as information on all people who have ever driven my car or their reasons for doing so.

3. You mention in your letter to me the subject of “contempt of court”. Can you explain why DCB Legal sign a statement of truth claiming an added amount that has no legal authority which can only be seen as a feeble attempt of double recovery. Especially as the Government bans such add-ons? I reserve the right to cross question the claimant.

I look forward to receiving your response.

patient_dream

MissUltraViolet.... that is good and will show them you are not a mug

How will they reply we wonder ...... will their excuse be that the BPA code of practice allows then to add fakes. But that is a fabrication by an unregulated industry that does not remotely have any legal clout.. This of course refers to fake so called debt cllector charges which the PPC does not pay because the dregs of the industry offer a "no win no fee" service.  

But, if they are claiming a fake "damages" charge that is because your ticket is dated 2016 and the debt collection wheeze did not come about until 2018 ?
POFA2012 makes no mention of damages and nor did the Supreme court in the Beavis case ?   It is without doubt a try-on and double recovery which the county court does not allow

And that comes back to the "statement of truth" and must be addressed by the judge