Help needed liability admitted for a Highview invoice - ccbc

Umkomaas

I'll take a break and have a think.

Yep, sleep on it and start when you're ready (subject to court deadlines) with a clear mind.

Concentrate your defence searches to Highview threads (and CP Plus, as they're essentially the same).   Get the most from the powerful search function by following the step-by-step guidance in the thread below. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6289402/weve-updated-the-search-function/p1

Coupon-mad

Loads of defences go on every day here, by admitted drivers and not admitted.

We still see 99% win.  PPC claims are weak.

blackjeans

Hi 

This is my defence.

please could someone have a read and let me know if this is ok. 

Many thanks

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.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 £302.88 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). The Defendant has come to understand that this relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle XXXXX, almost 6 years ago on 21/5/2016 at Hereford retail park 2, Hereford.

3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. At this time the car was being used by more than 1 person in 2016. The car was parked at a retail park whilst the defendant and family went to view and purchase a sofa from one of the stores on site. The transaction was not made that day, due to the store closing at 18:00. It is not clear who was driving when entering and exiting the car park on this unremarkable day, there was more than one person in the vehicle. The defendant and family returned the following day to purchase the sofa.

4.  Where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in the 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, how does the Claimant arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £217.88. The Defendant has excluded the £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

Coupon-mad

Yes that's good.

Have you got the original PCN?  They haven't used the first in, last out images across the two days and alleged you overstayed by 24 hours, did they?

blackjeans

 Yes they sent the original PCN in with all the info from the SAR.

No they didn't allege that I stayed for 24 hours. It shows the 21 minutes over on the first visit

blackjeans

Do you think I should put in.... The defendant tried to appeal online but due to a system error (I was putting a gap in the registration) pointed out by a telephone operative, the defendant wasn't able to do so in time?

Coupon-mad

Yes you could add that the system was not intuitive about number-plates and was consumer unfriendly, so the Defendant was let down by the system that could have resolved the dispute.  The PCN and signs also failed to tell shoppers that they could ask in Store for more time and/or complain to cancel any PCN, so that aspect of the alleged contract was withheld.  The Defendant felt powerless to prevent escalation and had no idea the Store Managers had the right to cancel the charge for genuine patrons.

blackjeans

Great idea, I shall use it. Thank you. 

4. The defendant tried to appeal online via the PCN appeal process but after many attempts, was unable to do so in time. A telephone operative pointed out the system was not intuitive about number-plates and did not recognise gaps in registrations. At the time of PCN there was no guidance and therefore, the website was consumer unfriendly, the Defendant was let down by the system that could have resolved the dispute. The PCN and signs also failed to tell shoppers that they could ask in Store for more time and/or complain to cancel any PCN, so that aspect of the alleged contract was withheld.  The Defendant felt powerless to prevent escalation and had no idea the Store Managers had the right to cancel the charge for genuine patrons.

Coupon-mad

Yes, I think any Judge will take a dim view of the roller coaster this PPC decided to put you on, instead of making it easy 'up front' for genuine shoppers making large purchases to exempt their car for a day, or cancel a PCN as the shop clearly would want. 

blackjeans

Yes I hope so, fingers crossed.

It's submitted. Onto the next part! 

Thank you for the help