Help Needed for Defence *Please* Highview/DCB Legal

Coupon-mad

Ok.  You need to read at least five or ten Highview defences snd include the usual stuff everyone copies from each other, about the POFA and Henry Greenslade.

pandapop88

Coupon-mad said:

Ok.  You need to read at least five or ten Highview defences snd include the usual stuff everyone copies from each other, about the POFA and Henry Greenslade.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question on 26/07/2016, but liability is denied. It is not known who was the driver on 26/07/2016. Both the defendant and her partner at the time shared use of the car and neither can remember who was driving on that unremarkable day almost six 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 £285.90 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). This relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle XXXXXX nearly six years ago on 26th July 2016 at Riverside Retail Park B. 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 £200.90. 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

And Henry Greenslade's words.

patient_dream

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 £200.90.?

It is a very simple question to the judge ..... DCBL are scamming you and adding interest.

The scam/fake add-on is no doubt either £60/£70 and as it's a 2016 ticket they are probably calling it "damages" ??

Regardless what they think, within POFA2012 there was never such a thing as damages and never has been or will be

DCBL are attempting to mislead the court. It is just a very feeble attempt to extort money and for the court, a feeble attempt of double recovery which is not allowed

Government has banned these fake add-on charges so who is the judge going to believe ?   the government or a legal who fakes it ?   We all know the answer to that one.

And then we come to the person who signed the statement of truth ?   Initials probably JM
If anyone lies to the court it is contempt. So, is it true that there are damages that can be proven ..... answer is NO

DCBL will use a "rent by the hour" legal so nothing to worry about there but you must make the judge IS fully aware of this fakery as it's now "Government v Fakers"   

No prizes who will win

KeithP

pandapop88 said:

Issued on 1st April, I filed the AoS on 2nd April.

With a Claim Issue Date of 1st April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 4th April (2nd April being a Saturday), you have until 4pm on Tuesday 3rd May 2022 to file your Defence.

That's nearly two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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'.

pandapop88

Coupon-mad said:

And Henry Greenslade's words.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question on 26/07/2016, but liability is denied. It is not known who was the driver on 26/07/2016. Both the defendant and her partner at the time shared use of the car and neither can remember who was driving on that unremarkable day almost six years ago. The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) lead adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015).

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 £285.90 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). This relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle XXXXXX nearly six years ago on 26th July 2016 at Riverside Retail Park B. 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 £200.90. The Defendant has excluded the £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

pandapop88

pandapop88 said:

Coupon-mad said:

And Henry Greenslade's words.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question on 26/07/2016, but liability is denied. It is not known who was the driver on 26/07/2016. Both the defendant and her partner at the time shared use of the car and neither can remember who was driving on that unremarkable day almost six years ago. The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) lead adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015).

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 £285.90 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). This relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle XXXXXX nearly six years ago on 26th July 2016 at Riverside Retail Park B. 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 £200.90. The Defendant has excluded the £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

Please can I have some feedback, is this okay? 

Le_Kirk

Seen that before and it covers the facts adequately; was it perhaps written by @Coupon-mad in a reply to another poster?  If so, you can't get better than that!

pandapop88

Le_Kirk said:

Seen that before and it covers the facts adequately; was it perhaps written by @Coupon-mad in a reply to another poster?  If so, you can't get better than that!

I think it probably was! Thank you! 

pandapop88

The defence didn't work - they seem hellbent on taking me to court  

I have received A Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track and a Form N180.

1. It says I need to send the Form N180 to the court office and serve copies on all other parties, who are all other parties please and how do I know who to send it to? They need to receive it by 1st July.

2. Also, some of the information it needs says to say when I am unavailable to appear in court. I am a teacher who cannot take time off work during term time, would it be worth mentioning this?

3. There is information in there about mediation, is it worth even considering this, I'm thinking, 'Nope.'


Thank you in advance,
N