Highview Parking PCN from 2019, CCJ claim received

Watkin_Bassett

The charge relates to an occassion when my then wife overstayed in a Highview controlled car park whilst she was breastfeeding our son who was 5 months old at the time. I believe this can be defended under the equality act 2010. I am at the stage where I am drafting my defence which I will post here for critique once I've finished drafting it. I would like to contact the landowner to see if I can get them to instruct Highview to drop it before it gets to court however the land registry doesn't include the building and car park in the postcode. It shows the car park on the map but won't let me drop a pin on it. I've asked around some of the food outlets that opperate from the building but they either won't tell me who the landlord is or point me to an estate agents sign on one of the empty units. I should imagine the estate agents aren't the owners. Is it possible Highview actually own the car park? Is there another way to find out who owns the land that the car park is on? Cheers

Umkomaas

I should imagine the estate agents aren't the owners.

Estate agents sell property, not own it. 

Is it possible Highview actually own the car park?

About as likely as an estate agent owning it. 

Is there another way to find out who owns the land that the car park is on? 

SOME IDEAS ON DETERMINING WHO OWNS THE LAND 

1. Google searches

2. If a retail park, check on any signage which lists the on-site outlets

3. Ask retailers on the site if there is a managing agent

4. Ask retailers on the site to whom do they pay rent

5. Contact the local authority and ask who pays the non-domestic/business rate for the car park (some councils have a spreadsheet on their website)

6. Contact the local Valuation Office and ask if they know. They often have a website which might provide the information 

7. Contact The Land Registry and for around £3 they should be able to provide definitive detail

8. If you haven't already done so, give us the name of the car park/site/location, we may have seen other cases there. 

KeithP

Hello and welcome.
From reading your post it looks like you may have received a County Court Claim Form rather that a CCJ - a County Court Judgment.

If that's the case, can you please tell us the Issue Date on that Claim form?

Where exactly did this alleged parking event take place?

Watkin_Bassett

Thanks Umkomaas, the car park has been mentioned on the forum before - it's behind Armstrong House in Market Weighton, the post code is YO43 3AW. 

Watkin_Bassett

KeithP - the issuw date is 27th May 2022. I have already filed the AoS and am hurriedly trying to get my defence ready to file. The alleged parking event took place behind Armstrong House in Market Weighton, YO43 3AW, it's an empty retail premises, was an Asda years ago, been empty for a while now. A couple of take-aways still work out of there but they aren't giving away any info on who their landlord is. 

KeithP

Watkin_Bassett said:

KeithP - the issuw date is 27th May 2022. I have already filed the AoS ... 

I am going to assume you filed an Acknowledgment of Service sometime after 1st June and before 16th June.

With a Claim Issue Date of 27th May, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 29th June 2022 to file your Defence.

That's well over a week 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'.

Watkin_Bassett

Thanks KeithP, I shall post a draft in the next couple of days. 

Watkin_Bassett

Hi all, yes - I know I have left it to the last minute, but the last minute is the only minute I have, so I'm after some urgent advice about my defence para 2 and 3.

So, the person driving the car at the time of the alleged parking event was not me. The driver stopped in the car park to breast feed our 5 month old son. As I understand it, overstaying for that reason is defensible under the Equalities act 2010. But in order to give these details and use that as a defence I would be naming the driver and so couldn't use PoFA as a defence?

Complicating matters is that this happened 3 years ago. I have a vague recollection of receiving the PCN and various threatening letters, all of which I ignored. I have no documentation from Highview about the parking event. The only thing I have to go on is the small claims letter which states just a date and time and location. 

Should I just stick to -

Para 2
I wasn't the driver. I'm not obliged to name the driver.

Para 3
I haven't got any details of the alleged parking event and so I don't know how it occurred.

???? HELP ????

Coupon-mad

But in order to give these details and use that as a defence I would be naming the driver.

No you wouldn't! 

Just say what the mother of the child was doing and mention her rights under the Equality Act 2010 not to be caused detriment for taking a short period of time to breastfeed the baby in the car before leaving.

Course you can use the POFA.

Copy any other Highview Defence that includes stuff about the POFA - by searching the forum you can find dozens in a split second.

Watkin_Bassett

cheers @Coupon-mad, I am just copying and pasting some POFA stuff out of the other recent Highview defences... thanks for getting back to me. 

Watkin_Bassett

Okay, draft paras 2 and 3 below, if anyone has opportunity to take a butchers before Weds then feedback most gratefully received. 

2.

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

The defendant does not have any record of the time to prove or disprove that they were the driver on the date in question.

3.

3a  The details of the alleged parking event, such as they are known to the defendant are thus:

i)              The driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged incident was in the vehicle with their 5 month old son.

ii)             The driver of the vehicle stopped to breastfeed their son.

3b The driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged parking event, as a mother breastfeeding a child below the age of 6 months, is a protected person under the terms of the Equalities Act 2010. Failure to make provision for a breastfeeding mother breaches the terms of the Equalities Act 2010. As such, the driver of the vehicle is entitled to a reasonable period of time in which to attend to their infant and Highview Parking is obliged to desist in their pursuit of either the keeper or the driver for parking charges for the alleged parking event.

3c The Defendant does not recall receiving the original PCN. The Defendant upon receiving the Claim Form has subsequently requested a copy via Subject Access Request to Group Nexus (who through research the Defendant now understand own Highview Parking Limited). The defendant has not been provided with any documentation from Group Nexus at the time of filing this defence so is unable to provide a more detailed comment on the particulars of the alleged parking event.

3d 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 Defendant was also the driver. The Defendant cannot be held liable for the charges as the keeper of the vehicle. It is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in PoFA 2018. The Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their POC which were signed under a statement of truth by Yasmin Mia, the Claimant's legal representative. The Claimant’s legal representative should know, as the Claimant undoubtedly does, that it is untrue to state that the Defendant is 'liable as keeper'.

3e 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.  The Claimant has failed to state any facts about the alleged breach or the amount of the parking charge that was on the signage, which cannot have been in excess of £100. The defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to pursue the defendant for a total of £190 without proof of what the sum of the original parking charge was and what sum has been added to this in the form of ‘damages’ and how those damages have been incurred. The Defendant has excluded the £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point.