Highview parking claim

catrat

I am acting on behalf of a friend who has received a claim from Highview Parking for £280 approx (£170 plus costs). 

The friend does not recall whether they were driving the vehicle and notice was served well after the 14 days specified in PoFa. They have not engaged with the process at all other than to point out to DCB Legal that they couldn’t rely on PoFa and that they wouldn’t be providing details of the driver.

They have only just done her SAR so the outcome will come after the defence is due with the court.

They were most likely the driver, but cannot say with any certainty but is concerned that by saying they do not know who the driver is that there may be photos they later sees as part of the SAR showing that they are. 

what would the general advice be on this? Say they probably are the driver or still go down the route of saying that they aren’t?

thank you in advance. All of the newbie threads have been read as have recent threads on Highview, but as we now can’t follow the usual steps, it is a little trickier. 

The work people do on here to help others is truly fantastic. The  person in question is moments from crumbling on this, but we have discussed funding this model and they are going to fight with a bit of help.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

Sounds like your friend has received a County Court Claim Form.
If that's so, then please tell us the Issue Date on it.

Where did the alleged parking event take place?

catrat

Thanks Keith - date was 28 July and they acknowledged service on 30 July (court received on 1 August). 

Alleged parking event was Epping Forest Retail park

KeithP

catrat said:

Thanks Keith - date was 28 July and they acknowledged service on 30 July (court received on 1 August). 

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, your friend has until 4pm on Tuesday 30th August 2022 to file her Defence.

That's over three weeks 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'.

catrat

Thanks Keith: we shall get on it. Did you have a view about the SAR and any potential identifiers? Would there be a problem if they didn’t know for instance but confirming that any image is them in a witness statement at a later date if such evidence does exist?

catrat

The defendant thinks it probably was them from banking records but finds it hard to distinguish between other trips and whether it was indeed them driving the car. They do not want to have to change their defence at a later date if photos from SAR do indicate so will likely go down route of admitting they are driver as this is most probable 

catrat

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. 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 was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and the driver. The Defendant does not however admit liability or acknowledge that they entered into a contract with the Claimant.

 

3. The Claim relates to an alleged infringement that took place at Epping Forest Retail Park on xx October 2020 and is for the sum of £280 (£170 plus interest of £25 from the day of the alleged infringement, plus £35 court costs and £50 legal fees). Epping Forest retail park is a car park occasionally used by the Defendant to spend money in the various other establishments within the retail park. The Claim in itself is far in excess of any amount stipulated on any sign within the premises which the Defendant now understands to be £100. 

 

4. The Defendant at the point of the alleged breach of contract had not noticed any signage upon entering the car park. The Defendant was not aware that they were entering a contract as the sign by the entrance, that the Defendant notes is currently in place (but cannot say whether it was at the time), is not clearly visible when contending with busy traffic on the other side of the road, pedestrians crossing and more prominent, clearer signage showing the speed limit in the area. The Defendant also contends that because they would need to drive across the traffic flowing in the opposite direction, it would not be possible to stop and read the sign even if noticed and that to read the sign whilst moving would endanger other users of the road and pedestrians as they would have to take their eyes off the road to do so. The Defendant did not notice any signage setting out the terms of the contract upon exiting their vehicle and entering the shops. It is of note that the Defendant was a customer of the retail park and from bank records can demonstrate that in the region of XXXX was spent on this particular shopping trip.

 

5. The Defendant is also aware that Covid-19 restrictions were in place and that as a result getting into shops and shopping whilst there would have taken much longer than usual. Nevertheless, the Defendant was not aware that there were any time limits associated with shopping in the retail park.

 

6. It is also of note that notices were not sent to the Defendant in the correct name and that has led to a delay in the Defendant realising the Claimant had made a Claim against them. Despite the Defendant informing the Claimant’s legal representative that the name on the form is not their name (but contains some of the same letters) this was not corrected on the Claim form.

catrat

Inserted into template of course 

KeithP

catrat said:

6. It is also of note that notices were not sent to the Defendant in the correct name and that has led to a delay in the Defendant realising the Claimant had made a Claim against them. Despite the Defendant informing the Claimant’s legal representative that the name on the form is not their name (but contains some of the same letters) this was not corrected on the Claim form.

Did you correct this when filing an Acknowledgment of Service?

Not worth mentioning in my opinion, but see what others say..

catrat

Yes I think so. 

catrat

Thank you for advice Keith. I will speak to my friend about how she wants to proceed. I am off on holiday in a week or so, so will wrap this up before the weekend I hope. Is there any disadvantage to filing defence early?