DCB/HIGHVIEW court dealine looming, sent SAR but need help!!!

Umkomaas

Read other recent Highview/CP Plus/UKPC/DCB Legal threads to learn that a very noticeable pattern is emerging. 

If you follow all the advice here, going through all the phases towards the court hearing, staying resolute, as the hearing date approaches, DCB Legal will try to phone you (ignore that), then email/write to you with an 'offer to settle' at a lower rate than they are currently seeking (ignore that, or tell them where to insert it), followed quickly by a letter of discontinuation. 

You just have to stay with the process. 

Vagatha1

Thanks, I will keep learning and will stick with the process, I have nearly caved a few times as pressure from friends saying I should just pay but the swines should not be able to get away with this, it is extortionate!

The main thing that I am confused about is, when reading the defence template and other defences, is, is it not contradictory to say that I don't know who is driving on a day so many years ago (to be honest I cant remember anything from so long ago) but then proceed as to describe what business the driver or keeper had at the car park in question. Should I give both explanations on my defence, does this work or will I get called out on it?

I work 12-24 hour shifts and go away on the 11th of August so I only really have 5 days that I can research and sort my defence out before the deadline so I am a little nervous and sick as I am thinking it all sounds contradictory or I am supposed to write it in a way that all the drivers who had access to my car all used the gym so could be any of us?

Thank you.

Umkomaas

The main thing that I am confused about is, when reading the defence template and other defences, is, is it not contradictory to say that I don't know who is driving on a day so many years ago (to be honest I cant remember anything from so long ago) but then proceed as to describe what business the driver or keeper had at the car park in question. Should I give both explanations on my defence, does this work or will I get called out on it?

You could have simply 'quizzed' the driver to find out what happened to allow you to complete the defence; you have no obligation - legal or moral - to identify the driver.

Your defence is all but written for you in the Template Defence Announcement - so once you've worked out the wording of the first few paras, it's simply a question of copying and pasting (probably with adjusted para numbers depending on how many paras of your own you put in at the start). Shouldn't take you more than half an hour once you have your own wording ready. 

The forum will check your wording before you email the defence to the CCBC. Please just show us what you have constructed the first few paras - please don't copy all the rest of the template to us, we've no need to read it yet again. 

Your defence really only matters to the judge, and, based on pattern and you following advice, a judge is never going to see it!

Vagatha1

Hi,

can someone please look at my defence points for critique, some of it will look familiar I admit. I have also looked into what the PoFA breach actually means so I know what it is going on about haha...

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 on this date is unknown to the Defendant. The Defendant was not the only user of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was or was not driving on an unremarkable date nearly 5 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 £316.92 (inclusive of £3`5 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs) from an initial parking fine of £95. The Defendant understands through research that this relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle xxxx 5 years ago in 2017 at Urban Exchange, M4, Manchester. which is a small retail car park with gym access parking underneath, which I believe uses an Ipad machine to enter registrations on, which do not always work or can been seen, the car park is dark as it is underground.

4.. The defendant cannot recall the alleged contravention or identify the possible driver due to the time elapsed. The defendant is aware of the carpark in question, as the other drivers have previously visited being members of the PureGym during that time. 

6. The Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question notes that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), Schedule 4.

7. In the Particulars of Claim ('POC') it is stated that the Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper but the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that the Defendant was also the driver. The Defendant cannot be held liable for the charges as the keeper of the vehicle. The Claimant did not properly serve a compliant notice to keeper in strict accordance with Paragraph 9, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of the PoFA, which states that notice to keeper must be delivered within the relevant period. Where the relevant period is defined as the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

6). Following on from [6] & [7], 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, how does the Claimant arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £231.92. The Defendant has excluded the £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

7 .The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is also quite clear that the maximum amount recoverable is £100.  Government ministers and government web pages explaining the Act refer to extra charges as "a rip off" Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.

I am really sincere when I say thank you to all who help everyone on here, you really are something else, you literally help thousands of people!! you are all so inspiring! I will definitely post what happens at the end of all this as it is quite frustrating reading posts not knowing if they won!

Coupon-mad

Not bad at all!

Remove this as it's not needed:

"sub-paragraphs 4 and 5" (remove that because you don't want to narrow which parts of paragraph 9 are breached).

Remove all this (repetition of what's already in the Template Defence) and I think the rest of if will then flow better but will need re-numbering of course:

Which then leads to the question, how does the Claimant arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £231.92. The Defendant has excluded the £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

7. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is also quite clear that the maximum amount recoverable is £100.  Government ministers and government web pages explaining the Act refer to extra charges as "a rip off" Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery."

Vagatha1

Thank you!!!

I have done that now, I will send off.

I looked at signage in 2017 on google maps for that carpark and there is a really big sign stating the max stay so should i leave pictures off for the witness/evidence stage or just take pictures of how dark it is in there and the smaller signs once underground as they are now?

also I have discovered that a place called town centre securities has this retail park on their portfolio online and it says they are a property investment and car park management company... does this sound like a landowner as the retail park has a name and that also has its own e-mail address?

Umkomaas

No photos with Defence, they come as evidence at the Witness Statement stage some months further down the line. And then, only use photos in your WS that help you, none that help the Claimant, so think carefully about what you include.

KeithP

When in 2017 did this alleged parking event take place?

It is interesting to see that GoogleStreetView shows that there was a large entrance banner sign in May 2018...


But in September 2017, and earlier, that banner was not yet in place...


To me, it looks very much like the entrance sign requirements mandated by the British Parking Association may not have been in place at the time of your parking event.

Vagatha1

Hi, it was in November. the driver parked in the bit underground to use the puregym there.

I have tried to print screen but I have no idea how you got those pictures on there but if you go to the side a bit there's a massive sign on that ramp down, unless google flicked back to the current date each time I click to see the ramp, I am sure it never had a sign there though. maybe I could take the dark underground bit out of my defence and say the car was parked on top instead to avoid them using that sign.

that's very nice of you btw to look on google street map to see about my case.

Vagatha1

Aye I think you are right keithP, because of the camera angles its hard to see the ramp but you can see it is a different sign in 2018 compared to 2017 as it just states where the exit and lower ground are!! when you click to look at the ramp it skips ahead to 2018 where it shows the maximum stay time in huge letters.

YES! THIS GIVES ME MORE CONFIDENCE!!