Highview Parking Court Claim defence help Please - Urgent

Tipps22

I’ve just joined your amazing community and am looking for some help with a court claim I’ve received from Highview Parking relating to an alleged parking overstay in 2016.  I’ve read the NEWBIES thread and read through as much of your discussions as I can and as a consequence  I requested the SAR from Nexus Group - once I received the LOC (and have now received their response) and have send the acknowledgement of service stating I intend to defend all of the claim.  I am now trying to work out my best defence.  So, a summary of events as I can recall are - receiving 2 identical ‘Legal Action Pending’ letters from Highview Parking on the same day in 2016, posted separately, claiming an overstay in a retail car park and indicating that I had ignored previous letters. Unfortunately, I don't have these letters anymore, (ironically I threw them out during lockdown when I was having a clear out!!) ..but I do remember them being of poor quality at the time so I thought they were junk/scams. I responded saying hadn't received any previous letters (which I hadn’t) and I wasn't going to pay the fee unless further evidence was forthcoming. I heard no more about it until 5yrs down the line in 2021 when DCBL started sending me a series of letters. I responded once I'd received a letter of claim, requesting the SAR. That yielded an email with 3 attachments showing essentially the same letter with different dates and 2 photos of a car entering and leaving the car park. The entry photo is very grainy and you can't read the number plate at all from the photo. The other one is clearer. They have now sent through the claim form. I’m not sure exactly what angle to take for the defence as it was so long ago, and the Feb 2022 Statutory Code of Practice seems to have been withdrawn from the Govt website  on 7th June now (not sure if that makes any difference?).  Any advice would be very gratefully received.  My defence needs to be submitted by 8th August….Thanks in advance.

Coupon-mad

It doesn't make any difference as the Code is only temporarily withdrawn.

Copy from literally ANY Highview defence here from 2022. We have had dozens!

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Tipps22

Issue date of the Claim was 6th July 2022 and I filed the Acknowledgment of Service on 21st July 2022.

KeithP

Tipps22 said:

Issue date of the Claim was 6th July 2022 and I filed the Acknowledgment of Service on 21st July 2022.

With a Claim Issue Date of 6th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you are right, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th August 2022 to file your Defence.

That's just a few days 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'.

Tipps22

A quick question, if the defendant admits to being the registered keeper and driver does the NTK not being compliant with the POFA Schedule 4 and keeper liability part of the defence still apply?

Coupon-mad

No, it doesn't.

Tipps22

Hi all.  This is my first attempt at a defence. Following some of the advice on other posts I have tried to stay succinct but am not overly confident there's enough substance.  Its been difficult as this claim relates to an event over 6 years ago now and I've been short on things to say here verses in the Witness Statement.  I am using the template from Coupon Mad overall but with the following paragraphs 2 and 3. 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but the liability is denied, and any breach of terms is also denied.

3. This claim relates to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued 6 years ago when the Defendant used the Airport Retail Park as a customer taking an elderly relative to visit the shops. The claim alleges that the Defendant was parked in breach of the Terms on the Claimant’s signs however the Defendant did not see any clear signs either at the entrance to the car park when entering or when parking and was unaware of any time limitations in force at the time of the alleged breach.  No terms were evident or have since been made available to the Defendant.  Furthermore, due to the poor quality of the APNR image provided in the Claimant’s Charge Notice, it is unclear whether the vehicle shown entering the car park is indeed the Defendant’s vehicle, making it impossible to ascertain the accuracy of the alleged duration of the stay.

Any advice gratefully received.  Thank you

Coupon-mad

APNR should read ANPR.

1.  Did the elderly relative have any kind of mobility or stamina-affecting medical condition that would have meant they fairly needed more time to get around the shops than an able-bodied person?

2.  Did they have a Blue Badge?

The above are two completely separate questions.  You don't have to have a Blue Badge to need more time.  Even if the answer to (1) was 'yes' then this could be added to the defence.

Tipps22

Thanks, I'll change that, slip of the key!  No blue badge at the time, unfortunately we didn't get that until 2018 with her second cancer diagnosis, but she had mobility and stamina issues at the time due heart and joint problems.  Do you think its worth adding to the defence then?  Something like....

3. This claim relates to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued 6 years ago when the Defendant used the Airport Retail Park as a customer taking an elderly relative with mobility and stamina issues to visit the shops. The claim alleges that the Defendant was parked ....etc

Coupon-mad

More than that!  Look:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8488737.stm

That's from twelve YEARS ago (pre-Equality Act!) and nothing has been done.  Only a few car parks advertise that disabled persons can claim more time by being added to a whitelist at shops.  You could add that as evidence at WS stage.

Did you ever appeal this PCN?  Say that too, if so.

You could have this extra paragraph, as your para 3 is fine so far:

4.  In any event, whilst a time limit had been set for able-bodied, average shoppers, this was not long enough for the elderly passenger, who indisputably met the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010. In managing this car park, this Claimant was breaking the law by not offering a 'reasonable adjustment' of more time for persons with protected characteristics who take longer to get around and need to rest while shopping. The passenger was frail, with mobility and stamina issues at the time due to chronic heart and joint problems and she was diagnosed around that time with cancer.  To pre-empt how the Claimant might respond to this point, the Defendant avers that there is no lawful justification against 'indirect discrimination' (against the public at large rather than aimed at an individual) by a trader saying they did not know about a medical need.  Indirect discrimination and a failure to put in place suitable adjustments is not dependent upon knowing about the circumstances of individuals.  The law requires anticipatory adjustments of fixed policies such as arbitrary time limits, in order to ensure that visitors with protected characteristics can obtain more time when needed. This legal protection has nothing to do with Blue Badges, albeit the passenger was later issued with one, and nor is the Claimant's duty met just by putting in place merely physical provisions such as accessible bays.  An adjustment of time was absent at this location, with nothing about how to ask for more time on the signage, and as such, the Claimant (as well as their client) were in breach of the Equality Act 2010.