Help with County Court Claim - Highview Parking

southwesteast

I have gone ahead and filed the acknowledgement of service as advised, I'll now be working on the defence template over the coming days.

Thank you for the responses regarding previous cases at this car park and for sharing the image.

5 and half year’s court claim/Highview - Page 3 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

I did come across this fairly recent thread from last year, where it looks like they were successful in getting the land owner to cancel the PCN, so I will definitely pursue that avenue. There are two possible companies listed as owners (Nuveen and LandSec), I haven't been able to reach Nuveen by phone today but will keep trying and will try the other company too. At the time of the thread I linked above, it looks there was a third company, Savills, who actually cancelled the ticket but searching today I can't find any reference to them as current land owners.

Hopefully this will be a worthwhile avenue to pursue, but I'll continue preparing the defence template in the meantime.

southwesteast

Umkomaas said: 

My only worry with defending it was that the claim form indicates that the amount due may increase if I do so

Really?  Can we see that?

It was the following text on the reverse of the first page of the claim form where I was getting this from, where they are taking you through the options for responding to the claim (see second paragraph regarding costs and interest below).

Registration of Judgments: If this claim results in a judgment order against you, details will be entered in a public register, the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines. They will then be passed to credit reference agencies, which will supply them to credit grantors and others seeking information on your financial standing. This will make it difficult for you to get credit. A list of credit reference agencies is available from Registry Trust Limited, 153-157 Cleveland Street, London W1T 6QW.

Costs and Interest: Additional costs and interest may be added to the amount claimed on the front of the claim form if judgment is entered against you. If judgment is for £5,000 or more, or is in respect of a debt which attracts contractual or statutory interest for late payment, the claimant may be entitled to further interest.

Coupon-mad

Well if it goes to a hearing, it potentially just  adds a £25 hearing fee (might be £35 now) which the Claimant pays of course.  But the Judge would almost certainly disallow the fake £70 debt recovery costs they've tried to extort' (Government's word).

And that's only if you lose.  We win here!

99% win rate since 2016 and that's consistent across six years.  No sign of that changing.

southwesteast

Coupon-mad said:

Well if it goes to a hearing, it potentially just  adds a £25 hearing fee (might be £35 now) which the Claimant pays of course.  But the Judge would almost certainly disallow the fake £70 debt recovery costs they've tried to extort' (Government's word).

And that's only if you lose.  We win here!

99% win rate since 2016 and that's consistent across six years.  No sign of that changing.

Well, that's reassuring... I hope I can help to maintain that success rate!

I was able to get the details of the CEO at LandSec and have emailed him, still no luck with contacting Nuveen so I've forwarded my complaint to their general enquiries email.

southwesteast

Unfortunately I have not been successful in getting any response from the landowner to date (LandSec have advised that the landowner is Nuveen), although I continue to try and reach them.

In the meantime I have prepared the defence template as below, I've only included sections 2 and 3 as I believe these are the only parts I should be modifying? I have used some of the wording suggested on this thread, please let me have any feedback.

Thank you in advance.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

 

3. On the date in question the Defendant and his wife had arrived at the car park directly from registering the birth of their two-week-old son. Whilst shopping and visiting the coffee shop within the retail park, the Defendant and his family had made use of the baby changing facilities multiple times for nappy changes and feeding, further the Defendant’s wife was recovering from caesarean section at the time of the visit, meaning that she was in a fair amount of discomfort with her mobility severely reduced. This did mean that the stay was longer than it might otherwise have been.

In view of the above, the Defendant has raised a formal complaint of discrimination with both the parking agent and the landowner, asking that the actions of Highview Parking be accounted for in failing to provide a way to exempt either disabled, elderly or mobility-impaired shoppers from the fixed policy of a tight time limit that is only suitable for able-bodied quicker patrons. Further, the Defendant believes that this constitutes discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 with regards to breastfeeding mothers with infants up to six months old. It is the view of the Defendant that there can be no legitimate interest in pursuing patrons of the shops at this retail park where the family included a nursing mother of a 2-week-old baby, where the mother had just had a Caesarean section and needed more time due to the severe effect on her mobility and stamina.

Further to the above, the first the Defendant heard of this matter was upon receipt of a letter from Highview Parking's debt collectors requesting payment. Having contacted Highview Parking the Defendant was informed verbally that the charge related to an overstay of a few minutes but that it was beyond the period in which an appeal was possible. The Defendant was aggrieved to only be hearing about the matter was through the debt collectors in the absence of any PCN and subsequently made several attempts to contact Highview Parking, making clear that the charges were not acceptable and would not be paid.  Highview Parking were unwilling to engage on the matter or even to share detail of the parking charge with the Defendant.

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.

Le_Kirk

A lot of paragraph 3 and the subsequent unnumbered paragraph (all paragraphs must be numbered) reads more like  a witness statement that a defence.  Keep it short, sharp and punchy but relating to legal/technical arguments only; the most important of which is that a nursing parent should have been allowed more time than anybody else.  You can tell the whole story in your witness statement.

southwesteast

Thank you for the feedback - please see another draft below.

Does this read better?

Am I correct that this is the only part of the template I should be editing?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

 

3. On the date in question the Defendant and his wife had arrived at the retail car park for a shopping trip, directly from registering the birth of their two-week-old son. At that time the Defendant’s wife was recovering from caesarean section, meaning that she needed more time due to the severe effect on her mobility and stamina. The Defendant believes that the Claimant (Highview Parking) has failed to provide a way to exempt either disabled, elderly or mobility-impaired shoppers from the fixed policy of a tight time limit that is only suitable for able-bodied quicker patrons. Further, the Defendant believes that this constitutes discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 with regards to breastfeeding mothers with infants up to six months old. It is the view of the Defendant that there can be no legitimate interest in pursuing patrons of the shops at this retail park where the family included a nursing mother of a 2-week-old baby, where the mother had just had a Caesarean section. More than once, the family had made use of the facilities available on the retail park for nursing and changing the baby. Further to the above, the Defendant has never received any Parking Charge Notice in relation to this matter.

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.

Coupon-mad

 Make that last addition #4 (with suggested added words shown  below) and re-number the rest of the template, which of course you must read, understand and use all of it:

4.  Further to the above, the Defendant has never received any Parking Charge Notice in relation to this matter.  As such, there can be no keeper nor driver liability, due to the failure to serve a consumer notice.  This breaches Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requirement for prominently drawing consumer notices (not just signs, but also letters such as parking charges) to a consumer's attention.

southwesteast

Thank you, I shall adjust as advised and get it summitted tomorrow.

I have read through the remainder of the template and understood most of it.

The section regarding the 8% interest being added to the amount, is this just a standard percentage that they add on?

Coupon-mad

Yes it is.  Normal court rate.