Highview Parking DCB Legal settlement offer

Buddy87

Hi
I should be grateful for advice please. I used the template for my defence and have completed an N180 form. I have been offered a settlement of £135.00. I am inclined to pay this as I may lose a day's pay if I go to court and lose the case.
Defence

DEFENCE

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. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. It is denied that the Defendant, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

3. It is difficult to know whether the defendant was at Riverside Retail Park A on 31 August 2018 as alleged, i.e. nearly 4 years ago.  The defendant rarely shops at this location as it is a long drive from home. However, the only reason the defendant has visited this location on a few occasions in the past is to take his wife and Mother-in-law to visit Hobbycraft. The defendant’s Mother-in-law is registered disabled and has a Blue Disabled Badge. The nature of her disability means she walks more slowly than most people and needs to stop for breaths. She also suffers pain when walking and standing and needs to have frequent rest breaks.

4. This car park is open to the public and therefore the landowner, managing agent, on-site outlets and the private parking company are all 'service-providers' who have a legal duty to adhere to the 'Equality Act Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations' which became law on 6th April 2011. In this case, the service provider has not complied with its duty to make relevant reasonable adjustments for customers with disabilities. The Act says that treatment of a disabled person amounts to discrimination where a service provider treats the disabled person unfavourably.

5. The positioning of the Claimant’s signage cannot be seen from all parking spaces.

POFA and CRA breaches

6. Pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a firm may have complied with other POFA requirements (adequate signage, Notice to Keeper wording/dates, and a properly communicated 'relevant contract/relevant obligation'). If seeking keeper/hirer liability - unclear from the POC - the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance.

etc.

Le_Kirk

Buddy87 said:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. It is denied that the Defendant, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

3. It is difficult to remember know whether if the defendant was at Riverside Retail Park A on 31 August 2018 as alleged, i.e. on an unremarkable day nearly 4 years ago.  

Are you defending as KEEPER only or as KEEPER and DRIVER?  Your paragraph 2 should say so.  Also suggestion above.

KeithP

Further improvement - insert the word 'day'...
...on an unremarkable day nearly 4 years ago.

   

Umkomaas

It's a fairly common part of the pattern that sees Highview/DCB Legal cases being offered a settlement figure, which if ignored/rejected is followed by a discontinuation. Tough it out for now, see where it goes!

Le_Kirk

KeithP said:

Further improvement - insert the word 'day'...
...on an unremarkable day nearly 4 years ago.

   

Thanks @KeithP, adjusted my post now.

Buddy87

Umkomaas said:

It's a fairly common part of the pattern that sees Highview/DCB Legal cases being offered a settlement figure, which if ignored/rejected is followed by a discontinuation. Tough it out for now, see where it goes!

Thank you! If I tough it out, am I likely to lose this offer?

Buddy87

Le_Kirk said:

Buddy87 said:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. It is denied that the Defendant, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

3. It is difficult to remember know whether if the defendant was at Riverside Retail Park A on 31 August 2018 as alleged, i.e. on an unremarkable day nearly 4 years ago.  

Are you defending as KEEPER only or as KEEPER and DRIVER?  Your paragraph 2 should say so.  Also suggestion above.

Sorry I didn't explain properly. I am nearly at the court stage now so I can't change the defence.

Coupon-mad

Buddy87 said:

Umkomaas said:

It's a fairly common part of the pattern that sees Highview/DCB Legal cases being offered a settlement figure, which if ignored/rejected is followed by a discontinuation. Tough it out for now, see where it goes!

Thank you! If I tough it out, am I likely to lose this offer?

You are likely to see them discontinue.  The offer is worthless.

Le_Kirk

Buddy87 said:

Sorry I didn't explain properly. I am nearly at the court stage now so I can't change the defence.

Aah, didn't spot that, it was the way you seemingly put up your defence as if for critique.  Let's hope the discontinuance comes soon.

Umkomaas

@Buddy87 - any update?