Court Claim: Highview Parking/DCB Legal

unclebobsleigh

Hi all,

• A PCN and reminders were received in 2019 for an alleged overstay in a Highview managed car park.

• Various threatening letters were received from debt collectors (DCBL Bailiffs).

• Letter of Claim was received by DCB Legal approx Oct 2021. DCB Legal were corresponded with. The correspondence lasted a month. It was argued:

• Their Letter of Claim is NOT 'in accordance with Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims' and it was pointed out in subsequent correspondence why it wasn't in compliant.

• Information in relation to the alleged debt was sought to better understand the alleged debt. DCB Legal provided little information in response to the information sought. They provided designs of the signage, an inaccurate satellite photograph of the car park in question with annotation of signage locations and copies of the PCNs sent. 

• SAR was made to the parking company.

• DCB Legal couldn't provide all the information requested and said they would put the file on hold (Oct 2021).

• A few weeks ago DCB Legal made contact again. They simply provided the same material again and stated since all the evidence had been served the case was no longer on hold and asked for payment or threatened a claim being made if it was not paid in 30days. 

• DCB Legal were contacted to inform them they had put the file on hold until such time they could provide the info request, and they still had not provided the info requested.

• Claim Form was received 12/09/22.

• AoS filed 18/09/22.

• Defense being prepared (via the new template) but advice is being sought on the defense.

Details of the alleged incident:

• Alleged overstay in a Highview managed retail car park.

• The driver has not been identified. The vehicle is accessible/usable by multiple drivers - but this is rare.

• Based on research and the little information provided it seems as if the alleged incident was related to an overstay at a McDonalds drive through and car park as all other businesses on the retail park are closed at the time of the alleged offense.

Other details:

• Signage on a subsequent visit to the site shows it is poor.

• McDonalds CEO contacted to complain about the appalling treatment. The complaint was passed to the franchise owner who insisted there is nothing they can do as it’s too late and the car park is provided by the landowner for all business on the premises. 

Coupon-mad

These cases are all the same, so you can copy any other Highview unremarkable day POFA defence thread. Those are your forum search words.

KeithP

unclebobsleigh said:

• Claim Form was received 12/09/22.

• AoS filed 18/09/22.

You say that the Claim Form was received on 12th September.
Can you now please tell us the Issue Date on that Claim Form?

Where exactly did this alleged parking event take place?

unclebobsleigh

KeithP said:

unclebobsleigh said:

• Claim Form was received 12/09/22.

• AoS filed 18/09/22.

You say that the Claim Form was received on 12th September.
Can you now please tell us the Issue Date on that Claim Form?

Where exactly did this alleged parking event take place?

Sorry i meant "issue date". Issue date is the 12th Sep 2022.

The claim form says the alleged parking event take place ".. at Chaul End Lane Retail Park 2".

Ps. Mad kudos to you Coupon-mad and Keith P for helping people with these scams!

Umkomaas

I thought I'd draw your attention to this fairly recent thread which you might have missed. You must keep going through all the necessary court procedure phases, but the hope is that your case will follow the same pattern of all those detailed in the thread. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

KeithP

unclebobsleigh said:

KeithP said:

unclebobsleigh said:

• Claim Form was received 12/09/22.

• AoS filed 18/09/22.

You say that the Claim Form was received on 12th September.
Can you now please tell us the Issue Date on that Claim Form?

Where exactly did this alleged parking event take place?

Sorry i meant "issue date". Issue date is the 12th Sep 2022.

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th October 2022 to file your Defence.

That's nearly two 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'.

patient_dream

unclebobsleigh ....... Your post explaind a lot and you are clearly on top of this.  You have already flawed DCBL as they cannot provide the info and as we suspect, it is another case of the right hand v the left hand ?

The missing info and them ignoring you is prime for a judge to spank them.  Will DCBL waste the courts time ?

Sadly, you have to play the game with DCBL because they only have two options, go to court and get spanked and you can claim your costs, or they discontinue

As you know just in a few weeks DCBL have discontinued 55 cases and that's what we know about ?      

It really is a case of the right hand v the left hand ?

PLAY THE DCBL GAME ..... it's fun

PS: Not yet available on an APP

KeithP

It may be a bit late now that you have a Claim Form, but maybe you should seek the help of the site's managing agents.

The totem at the car park entrance shows Edgerley Simpson Howe to be responsible. There may even be contact details but I can't make them out on GSV. 
Are you local? Can you go and get the details from that totem?

Le_Kirk

patient_dream said:

PLAY THE DCBL GAME ..... it's fun

PS: Not yet available on an APP

Not whilst I am drinking my coffee please!  

unclebobsleigh

Hi all,

Thanks for all your support so far. Without you guys i'd just pay it to get rid of the stress.

Draft defense below.

Not sure if the defense is the right place for the point im trying to make in the 5th paragraph or if i even worded it correctly.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks in advance.

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, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.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 £304 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). The Defendant has come to understand that this relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle XXXXX, over 3 years ago on XX/XX/XXXX at Chaul End Lane Retail Park 2, Luton.

3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The identity of the driver at the material time is unknown to the Defendant. The Defendant was not the only potential driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was or was not driving on an unremarkable day over 3 years ago.

4.  Where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in the 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 £219.00. The Defendant has excluded the £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point.

5. In line with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, the Defendant has made every effort to engage with the Claimant to settle the matter swiftly without court proceedings. The Defendant has sought further details in relation to the particulars of the claim from the Claimant. The Claimant placed the case “on-hold” until such time they could provide the requested information. The Claimant has been unable or unwilling to provide said detail for over a year. The Claimant is now intending to pursue recovery of alleged debt via litigation instead of any meaningful exchange of information to settle the matter fairly.

KeithP

Looks ok to me but your paragraph 2 is superfluous because all that information is already on the Claim Form.