PCN help - DCB Legal

angryparkingfine12

Hi all

I would appreciate some help with looking at my defence case.

To give you some background about what happened:

I was meeting a friend for a work meeting back in 2017 - at a Tescos and knew we had a three hour limit. I believed I had kept within the limit - from when I parked my car. However, this year I received a letter asking for £170 for an infringement. I asked for all the details about the case and was informed I arrived at the car park at 10.23 and left at 13:38 - 15 minutes over the 3 hour limit.   Now I drove around a few times in the car park to find my space and it looks like from their images of the car they have clocked me from when I entered the car park.

They have now sent me a Claim Form for £328.12 - which I intend to defend. 

Please see image of the car in the car park and my defence below. 

Also to confirm the steps I have followed - I requested a SAR. When i asked for all the SAR on this case they provided me with letter they first sent to me 3 months after the infringement - to an address I had moved from - so didn't live there. They also provided me some photos of the signage from 2019 - 2 years after the infringement - see below and some other blurry sign images with no date.


Please can you let me know your thoughts on this?

Thanks

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. 

It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and driver.

3. 

The defendant visited the Tesco Extra Rydon Lane Retail Park on the 19th October 2017 for a work meeting with a colleague, at the coffee shop. When the defendant arrived at the Retail Park she was stuck in some traffic as she found her space, the car park was also quite big – this took at least 10 minutes from entering the car park. The defendant then took less than 3 hours for her meeting and went to leave – from when the defendant got in her car, this was within the three-hour time limit. It then took a further 10 minutes to leave the car park.

The defendant did not receive any letters regarding the infringement – as they had moved from the address the letter was sent to until 2022 – when the defendant asked to appeal their case. The defendant attempted to speak to Highview Parking but were transferred to DCB Legal – where they were told they could not appeal.

and 

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

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

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

angryparkingfine12

Hi Keith
Thank you for your reply.
Issue date is 22 November - filed AOS today - 28/11/2022 (as only received the letter today).
Thanks

Coupon-mad

How can you be sure this was the day you met your colleague all that time ago?  Have you only been there once?

Asking this because Highview can't hold a registered keeper liable because they don't use POFA 2012 wording.  As such, we normally advise a Defendant to defend as registered keeper and be more vague about the day, and search for & copy a Highview unremarkable day defence.

Did the claim come to the right address?

KeithP

angryparkingfine12 said:

Hi Keith
Thank you for your reply.
Issue date is 22 November - filed AOS today - 28/11/2022 (as only received the letter today).
Thanks

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Thursday 29th December 2022 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see you are not leaving 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'.

angryparkingfine12

Hi 
Thank you for the feedback - I have found the 'Highview Unremarkable Day Defence' please see mine below:

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. 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 5 years ago.

3.  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.

4.  The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the PoFA, Schedule 4.

5. Following on from [4] & [5], where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in 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 £xxx.xx. Defendant has excluded the £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

6. The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service [PATAS] and Parking on Private Land Appeals [POPLA] Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015)

angryparkingfine12

Coupon-mad said:

How can you be sure this was the day you met your colleague all that time ago?  Have you only been there once?

Asking this because Highview can't hold a registered keeper liable because they don't use POFA 2012 wording.  As such, we normally advise a Defendant to defend as registered keeper and be more vague about the day, and search for & copy a Highview unremarkable day defence.

Did the claim come to the right address?

In response to this message - it's the only time I've ever visited the car park - so I know it was the meet that colleague.

My only worry is when I was trying to get the charge thrown out I said this to DCBL Legal:

As can be seen on the Charge notice the date which it was sent out is the 23 January 2018 (3 months after the initial infringement). I was living in New Zealand at the time and not at the address of the property.

The car had also been sold and was not owned by me.

The notice was not received by me until this year, so I could not have lodged an appeal within the allocated time. 

Regarding the reason I went 16 minutes over - is because the car park is large and there was traffic, so by the time I had parked my car this had taken at least 15 minutes - because I was waiting on someone to leave their space and then to exiting the car park from my car took at least another 5 - 10 minutes - an elderly lady needed help with her shopping . Therefore, I was only parked in the space for less than 3 hours. As details in the sign - 3 hours maximum stay. 

Could this be used against me if I go with the 'can't hold a registered keeper liable' line.

KeithP

angryparkingfine12 said:

Coupon-mad said:

How can you be sure this was the day you met your colleague all that time ago?  Have you only been there once?

Asking this because Highview can't hold a registered keeper liable because they don't use POFA 2012 wording.  As such, we normally advise a Defendant to defend as registered keeper and be more vague about the day, and search for & copy a Highview unremarkable day defence.

Did the claim come to the right address?

In response to this message - it's the only time I've ever visited the car park - so I know it was the meet that colleague.

My only worry is when I was trying to get the charge thrown out I said this to DCBL Legal:

As can be seen on the Charge notice the date which it was sent out is the 23 January 2018 (3 months after the initial infringement). I was living in New Zealand at the time and not at the address of the property.

The car had also been sold and was not owned by me.

The notice was not received by me until this year, so I could not have lodged an appeal within the allocated time. 

Regarding the reason I went 16 minutes over - is because the car park is large and there was traffic, so by the time I had parked my car this had taken at least 15 minutes - because I was waiting on someone to leave their space and then to exiting the car park from my car took at least another 5 - 10 minutes - an elderly lady needed help with her shopping . Therefore, I was only parked in the space for less than 3 hours. As details in the sign - 3 hours maximum stay. 

Could this be used against me if I go with the 'can't hold a registered keeper liable' line.

Yes.

Clearly the words "by the time I had parked my car" tells everyone who was driving.
Confirmed by "I was only parked in the space".

Forget any idea of using POFA to deny keeper liability.

angryparkingfine12

KeithP said:

angryparkingfine12 said:

Coupon-mad said:

How can you be sure this was the day you met your colleague all that time ago?  Have you only been there once?

Asking this because Highview can't hold a registered keeper liable because they don't use POFA 2012 wording.  As such, we normally advise a Defendant to defend as registered keeper and be more vague about the day, and search for & copy a Highview unremarkable day defence.

Did the claim come to the right address?

In response to this message - it's the only time I've ever visited the car park - so I know it was the meet that colleague.

My only worry is when I was trying to get the charge thrown out I said this to DCBL Legal:

As can be seen on the Charge notice the date which it was sent out is the 23 January 2018 (3 months after the initial infringement). I was living in New Zealand at the time and not at the address of the property.

The car had also been sold and was not owned by me.

The notice was not received by me until this year, so I could not have lodged an appeal within the allocated time. 

Regarding the reason I went 16 minutes over - is because the car park is large and there was traffic, so by the time I had parked my car this had taken at least 15 minutes - because I was waiting on someone to leave their space and then to exiting the car park from my car took at least another 5 - 10 minutes - an elderly lady needed help with her shopping . Therefore, I was only parked in the space for less than 3 hours. As details in the sign - 3 hours maximum stay. 

Could this be used against me if I go with the 'can't hold a registered keeper liable' line.

Yes.

Clearly the words "by the time I had parked my car" tells everyone who was driving.
Confirmed by "I was only parked in the space".

Forget any idea of using POFA to deny keeper liability.

Okay so do you think I have a chance with this case - can I defend on the ground that I only went 16 minutes over and the cameras were at the front of the car park - so from the moment I got out the car after parking it was within the three hours?

Defence suggestion below:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and driver.

3. The defendant visited the Tesco Extra Rydon Lane Retail Park on the 19th October 2017 for a work meeting with a colleague, at the coffee shop. When the defendant arrived at the Retail Park she was stuck in some traffic as she found her space, the car park was also quite big – this took at least 10 minutes from entering the car park. The defendant then took less than 3 hours for her meeting and went to leave – from when the defendant got in her car, this was within the three-hour time limit. It then took a further 10 minutes to leave the car park.

The defendant did not receive any letters regarding the infringement – as they had moved from the address the letter was sent to until 2022 – when the defendant asked to appeal their case. The defendant attempted to speak to Highview Parking but were transferred to DCB Legal – where they were told they could not appeal.

angryparkingfine12

KeithP said:

angryparkingfine12 said:

Coupon-mad said:

How can you be sure this was the day you met your colleague all that time ago?  Have you only been there once?

Asking this because Highview can't hold a registered keeper liable because they don't use POFA 2012 wording.  As such, we normally advise a Defendant to defend as registered keeper and be more vague about the day, and search for & copy a Highview unremarkable day defence.

Did the claim come to the right address?

In response to this message - it's the only time I've ever visited the car park - so I know it was the meet that colleague.

My only worry is when I was trying to get the charge thrown out I said this to DCBL Legal:

As can be seen on the Charge notice the date which it was sent out is the 23 January 2018 (3 months after the initial infringement). I was living in New Zealand at the time and not at the address of the property.

The car had also been sold and was not owned by me.

The notice was not received by me until this year, so I could not have lodged an appeal within the allocated time. 

Regarding the reason I went 16 minutes over - is because the car park is large and there was traffic, so by the time I had parked my car this had taken at least 15 minutes - because I was waiting on someone to leave their space and then to exiting the car park from my car took at least another 5 - 10 minutes - an elderly lady needed help with her shopping . Therefore, I was only parked in the space for less than 3 hours. As details in the sign - 3 hours maximum stay. 

Could this be used against me if I go with the 'can't hold a registered keeper liable' line.

Yes.

Clearly the words "by the time I had parked my car" tells everyone who was driving.
Confirmed by "I was only parked in the space".

Forget any idea of using POFA to deny keeper liability.

Sorry I actually think - I drove around this car park - then moved to the Tesco car park - so I believe they've caught me coming into this car park and then I left again to go to Tescos (as this is a separate car park) and then back again to pick up something from one of the shops in this parade. Is this worth mentioning? 

Umkomaas

angryparkingfine12 said:

KeithP said:

angryparkingfine12 said:

Coupon-mad said:

How can you be sure this was the day you met your colleague all that time ago?  Have you only been there once?

Asking this because Highview can't hold a registered keeper liable because they don't use POFA 2012 wording.  As such, we normally advise a Defendant to defend as registered keeper and be more vague about the day, and search for & copy a Highview unremarkable day defence.

Did the claim come to the right address?

In response to this message - it's the only time I've ever visited the car park - so I know it was the meet that colleague.

My only worry is when I was trying to get the charge thrown out I said this to DCBL Legal:

As can be seen on the Charge notice the date which it was sent out is the 23 January 2018 (3 months after the initial infringement). I was living in New Zealand at the time and not at the address of the property.

The car had also been sold and was not owned by me.

The notice was not received by me until this year, so I could not have lodged an appeal within the allocated time. 

Regarding the reason I went 16 minutes over - is because the car park is large and there was traffic, so by the time I had parked my car this had taken at least 15 minutes - because I was waiting on someone to leave their space and then to exiting the car park from my car took at least another 5 - 10 minutes - an elderly lady needed help with her shopping . Therefore, I was only parked in the space for less than 3 hours. As details in the sign - 3 hours maximum stay. 

Could this be used against me if I go with the 'can't hold a registered keeper liable' line.

Yes.

Clearly the words "by the time I had parked my car" tells everyone who was driving.
Confirmed by "I was only parked in the space".

Forget any idea of using POFA to deny keeper liability.

Sorry I actually think - I drove around this car park - then moved to the Tesco car park - so I believe they've caught me coming into this car park and then I left again to go to Tescos (as this is a separate car park) and then back again to pick up something from one of the shops in this parade. Is this worth mentioning? 

This contradicts somewhat that which you've already told them in writing. And as you only 'think' it was the situation (from more than 5 years ago) I'm not sure how much hope you can place on that.