Advice on Witness Statement submission - Highview Parking Ltd/Group Nexus

Sebi_895

Hi, hope you're all well.

I have joined your helpful community and am hoping I can obtain some advice.

I received a county court claim form (issue date 10th March 2022) regarding parking charges from Highview Parking dating back to February 2018. To my detriment I ignored the so called PCNs and thought they would go away; I followed advice from various folk I knew who had received similar PCNs and the parking company had left them alone after a while. From time to time, I received another reminder and then the DCB legal team entered and sent over demands of astronomical amounts and even a reduced special offer! I waited it out again and then it went quiet, so I figured it had gone away. But now after 4 years they have come back, this time with the county court business centre claim.

I have scanned your site and all the relevant forums and I would like to thank you for all the help and advice that many of you have taken the time out to put there. I've read all the relevant sections in the Newbies threads and got myself in a position to start my fightback. I know if I had only come here 4 years ago, I wouldn't be here asking for assistance now; sometimes you live by that tiny sword!

After trawling through the newbies thread, I have so far actioned as follows;

·        13/03/2022: completed the acknowledgement of service online advised that I will contest it.

·        13/03/2022: Sent a SAR to Group Nexus; have today received acknowledgement of request.

·         14/03/2022 – Compiled a defence letter from the defence template in the newbies thread

I know I have time on my side in compiling my defence but am taking no chances to leaving it to the last minute. I have not emailed their solicitor as yet as I was under the impression that the defence letter should be done first. If this is incorrect, please finger wag me and let me know.

If I can please request someone to check my defence letter and advise if its ok to go - I have more or less used the template that was provided.

I appreciate your assistance in this matter greatly.

Claim No.:  JXXXXX

Between

Highview Parking Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Sebi_895

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

 

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or 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. 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 driving on that unremarkable day over 4 years ago.

3. 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 £284.22 (inclusive of a £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). Through research the Defendant has come to understand the PCN(s) relates to a PCN(s) that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle GXXX XXX, over 4 years ago on 20 February 2018.

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  The Defendant should not be criticised for using some pre-written wording from a reliable source.  The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. This Defendant signed it after full research and having read this defence several times, because the court process is outside of their life experience.  The claim was an unexpected shock.

5. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking cases, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a generic and incoherent statement of case.  Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) was served with a Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation, making it difficult to respond in depth at this time.  

Points 6 to 24 as per template (not adding here to save you guys reading what you already know!)

Conclusion

25. With the DLUHC's ban on additional costs, there is now ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims.  For HMCTS to only dismiss extortionate costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings, whilst allowing other such claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers every year, who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts due to intimidating tactics at pre-action stage. The Defendant believes that knowingly enhanced parking claims cause consumer harm on a grand scale and it is in the public interest that claims like this should not be allowed to continue.  The Defendant invites the court to dismiss the false 'costs' element at least, and to consider whether an appropriate sanction is to resume the policy of striking out parking claims altogether, where the POC include a vague but fixed sum in 'damages/costs'. 

26. The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant. 

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Coupon-mad

You are not meant to email their solicitor at all as you are not at LBC stage.

Did you appeal at all at the time?  A Highview PCN was so easy to kill off then, at the outset, had you used our registered keeper appeal.  They always cancel within days when they see the forum template appeal!   Too late now but we need to know if you appealed and admitted to driving?

DO NOT fill in Group Nexus' crappy and sneaky SAR form that asks if you were the driver.  Absolute sharp practice IMHO.

Replace the pointless paragraph 3 that we keep telling people not to copy, with some wording about the NTK being non-POFA and the fact they can't hold you liable.

There is a Highview thread on the first page or two today, where someone has just finished their defence and replaced para 3 with that. Can't recall which thread/username, but easy for you to skim-read thread titles and find.

Fruitcake

I'm not familiar with the new template yet, but you need to explain in (I think) para 3 the type/location of the car park, what happened, and why the defendant is not liable. The judge won't know anything to start with and needs to understand what happened. Was it a residential site, supermarket, hospital, retail park, pay and display, permit parking, accessible bay etcetera, and why was a charge issued?

In addition, it would be helpful for you to tell us where this happened as it may have cropped up here before, as well as what happened when you complained to the landowner and your MP.

KeithP

Sebi_895 said:

I received a county court claim form (issue date 10th March 2022)

·        13/03/2022: completed the acknowledgement of service online advised that I will contest it.

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 14th March (13th March was a Sunday), you have until 4pm on Monday 11th April 2022 to file your Defence.

That's nearly 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 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'.

Sebi_895

Coupon-mad said:

You are not meant to email their solicitor at all as you are not at LBC stage.

Did you appeal at all at the time?  A Highview PCN was so easy to kill off then, at the outset, had you used our registered keeper appeal.  They always cancel within days when they see the forum template appeal!   Too late now but we need to know if you appealed and admitted to driving?

DO NOT fill in Group Nexus' crappy and sneaky SAR form that asks if you were the driver.  Absolute sharp practice IMHO.

Replace the pointless paragraph 3 that we keep telling people not to copy, with some wording about the NTK being non-POFA and the fact they can't hold you liable.

There is a Highview thread on the first page or two today, where someone has just finished their defence and replaced para 3 with that. Can't recall which thread/username, but easy for you to skim-read thread titles and find.

Thank you for your reply.

No I did not appeal at any point and no I have never admitted to being the driver - in all honesty I do not know who the driver was at the time. I am the registered keeper of the car though.

I have only had the acknowledgement of the SAR request but I will make sure I avoid any forms - thank you.

I thought I had covered it all but obvioulsy not - I will go back and read more and view the referenced thread and come back with an amended defence letter.

Sebi_895

Fruitcake said:

I'm not familiar with the new template yet, but you need to explain in (I think) para 3 the type/location of the car park, what happened, and why the defendant is not liable. The judge won't know anything to start with and needs to understand what happened. Was it a residential site, supermarket, hospital, retail park, pay and display, permit parking, accessible bay etcetera, and why was a charge issued?

In addition, it would be helpful for you to tell us where this happened as it may have cropped up here before, as well as what happened when you complained to the landowner and your MP.

Hi Fruitcake, thanks for your reply.

Ok I will go away, read some more and come back with a jazzed up defence letter.
The car park was a retail car park (that DIY store, a carpet company and clothing company shared) Think the car was captured by one of those ANPR cameras. Car was parked after 8pm so all stores had shut. PCN issued as car had parked over allocated time. No complaint was made to landowner or MP. I know should have done all sorts ages ago but it is what it is....shoulda coulda woulda!

Le_Kirk

No need for a jazzed up defence letter.  A defence is a series of short punchy legal/technical arguments, written in the third person.  The arguments should be used to refute what is claimed in the POC.  Using the defence template, paragraph #1 is not edited, paragraph #2 states whether you are keeper and NOT the driver or keeper AND driver.  A defence as "not driver" is best if  a) you weren't the driver and b) the PCN failed POFA.  Paragraph #3 is used to set the scene for the judge and explain that you deny not paying/overstaying/not displaying/not having a permit/not having a blue badge (or whatever the POC states) and, provided you have opened the door with those arguments, you can tell the whole story in the narrative that forms the witness statement along with the evidence that backs up the defence.  Just write section 3 in your own words and one of the regulars will critique it for you; resist the temptation to write War & Peace.

Sebi_895

Evening all, thank you for your words of advice and critique. I have come back with an amended defence letter.

So I have done the following:

* Updated Para 2 to clarify that I was not the driver 

* Amended para 3 to account for NTK being non-POFA 

* Added a para 4 to point out that the claimant did not comply with the 'keeper liability' as per PoFA, 

The rest is as per the template that has been kindly provided. If I can please request someone to check my amended points in the defence letter.

Again, your assistance in this matter greatly appreciated.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. Through research the Defendant has come to understand the PCN(s) relates to a PCN(s) that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle GXXX XXX, over 4 years ago on XX MMM 2018. 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. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was driving on that unremarkable day over 4 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 £284.22 (The Defendant has included the £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs for the purposes of this defence point).

Trainerman

First line of para 2 should presumably read  ".........has come to understand that the claim relates to a PCN ...."

Coupon-mad

Apart from that, all good.

Sebi_895

Coupon-mad said:

Apart from that, all good.

Trainerman said:

First line of para 2 should presumably read  ".........has come to understand that the claim relates to a PCN ...."

Thank you kindly, your help and guidance has been astounding.
I will ready my defence email and send off early next week - I'm well within my time as AOS was 14th March.
Will keep you posted on further developments.