HELP ASAP PLS! County Court Claim - Highview Parking PCN - VC5 not updated - no chance to appeal

Not_A_Hope

I can't see the signage properly on google maps, but if I match up what i see to a clear photo of another Highview Parking place, I can see it reads something like BIG LETTERS: "2 Hour Maximum Stay. Customer Parking Only" Smaller Letters: "Maximum Stay 2 Hours. No return within 1 hour" 

All car park signage from the same parking company can be different as they will agree different terms with each land owner. I suggest you check and get photos of the actual site if it’s not too far away.

Our defence is only that we did not receive the letters until the DCBL get involved, sending Notice of Debt Recovery to new and old address, therefore we did not have chance to appeal and ask for the evidence to prove that we did not leave car park between the two times stated that we did

Not receiving the letters from the PPC unfortunately is not a defence. Inadequate signage and all the other points in the defence template are.

With regards to the Defence - The letter - which I will take more time to read and TRY to understand - says to modify to your own case, but somewhere else I read, particulars don't seem to matter.

The particulars of the claim are what is actually stated on the County Court Claim form. If they haven’t actually stated which of the terms you have allegedly breached there is recent case law which can result in the court throwing their claim out.

If you follow the advice on this forum through to the Witness Statement stage it is likely your case will be added to the following thread when DCBL give up and discontinue 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations#latest9

bexr100

Hi all, So we have done AOS and now writing defence with help of the defence template.

I have included the Civil Enforcement v Chan case. But just seen that the particulars does note the details as being xxx date and PCN number xxxx. We now have the physical PCN as went round to the old address to pick it up, but putting these details in to the High View parking website does not bring up any details. Is this reference in the Particulars enough information to discredit that argument?

Given the particulars of the time spent in the car park, are not there in the Particulars of Claim box, should I not include anything about the double dip situation?

If we are to include about the double dip, we will try to get to the car park to take pics. If it does say "Maximum Stay 2 hours. No return within 1 hour" does this throw out the double dipping argument? To me that reads you can stay for 2 hours in total and then after those 2 hours, you can't come back for another hour. We don't know exactly how long he was away from the car park, but think it would have been at least 20 minutes, if not, at least 10 minutes (which would make room for the grace period). We don't have any evidence of being away from the car park ourselves and I've seen that car park companies have actually lied to the courts to say they don't have any evidence of multiple entry and exit, so unsure whether this will work?

Should we say that if we were to be found at fault with an appeal, we would have paid, but we didn't get chance to appeal- or is there no reason to include this?

The only evidence of anything we have is that he spent £100 in the shop there on that date. Not sure if this is worth mentioning?

Have included pics of PCN, Claim Form, The fuzzy google image of signage and similar signage from a DIFFERENT car park, but by cross referencing, I'm pretty sure it says "Maximum Stay 2 hours. No return within 1 hour"

over to the

bexr100

Also - someone on Pepipoo said that the PCN is non POFA 2012 compliant. Not sure how. But shouldn't I be naming the driver at this stage?

KeithP

bexr100 said:

Also - someone on Pepipoo said that the PCN is non POFA 2012 compliant. Not sure how. But shouldn't I be naming the driver at this stage?

If the NtK is not POFA compliant, why would you want to name the driver?

Do you understand what 'not POFA compliant' means?
My understanding of that is that the parking company cannot use the features of POFA to transfer any driver liability to the keeper. So if they cannot transfer that liability to the keeper, why would you want to do that for them?

bexr100

Oh gosh - I don't know. I am trying to write a defence now (see the post before the POFA one) and either we say A) that he was is the keeper and the driver and explain the double dipping situation OR B ) we say he was not the driver and the PCN is not PofA compliant and thus, no further explanation needed? Right? In an email my husband wrote to highview and nexus, he identified himself as the driver to try and explain the situation (before finding this forum obviously). They never did reply, but they must have it on record, so prob better to go with option A right?

bexr100

 --- So this is from the template letter - hence my confusion as to whether to identify as the driver and keeper or not.

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

^EDIT THIS PARAGRAPH If you were driving, add 'and driver' after the word 'keeper'.

OR if the Defendant doesn't know who was driving, say that.

OR deny being the driver if you weren't: ONLY IF TRUE!

UncleThomasCobley

bexr100 said:

I have included the Civil Enforcement v Chan case. But just seen that the particulars does note the details as being xxx date and PCN number xxxx.

Re-read the PoC... Nowhere do they state what the breach of the terms was. They only state that you allegedly breached the terms. The date and the PCN number are as useful as a poke in the arm with a sharp stick as far as what terms were breached.

You must put the CEL v Chan preliminary matter right at the beginning of your defence. It should be paras #2 and #3 with the transcript embedded after it. Everything else is then renumbered sequentially after.

Coupon-mad

Only admit that the D was the keeper. 

State in your facts (AFTER the Chan transcript) that more than one person drives the vehicle and shops at that local retail site so the D requires evidence of who was driving, because the Claimant's Notice to Keeper (which arrived weeks after the alleged event) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (schedule 4) in that this Claimant deliberately chooses not to use the 'keeper liability' provisions/wording. Thus the keeper cannot be held liable, despite the misleading POC stating: 'The D is liable as driver or keeper' which is false and denied because keeper liability is not in the gift of this Claimant and there is no evidence of the driver.

Use the template plus the Chan wording and transcript.

Do not mention 2 visits possibility (could wait till WS stage) but the D could say that the retail park is often used by the family and they have found bank statement records to prove patronage that day.  But this does not prove who was in fact driving and parked the car, and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

Not_A_Hope

Well if you have already identified to the PPC who the driver was there will be no point in denying it in your defence. It is better to tell the truth.

However the PCN from Highview is faulty because your husband did not stay for 2 hours and 20 mins. He left and returned. I do not know which of those signs relate to the car park he was at. One says two hours and one says three hours. 

However the Particulars on the claim form do not state which of their Terms of Contract have been broken. Therefore you can argue as a preliminary matter that the case v Chan should apply and the case dismissed.

Without stating that you are aware from the PCN that you now have what the alleged breach was you can simply describe what happened that day i.e went to car park, left because ….., returned some time later.

Later perhaps in your witness statement you can argue the ‘No return within 1 hour’ rule was not clear and obvious. The defence template already mentions poor signage so you can provide more detail on its inadequacies later.

What you should realise is you are playing a sick game with scammers trying to relieve you of as much money as possible. Whilst there can be no guarantees the likelihood is if you continue to play the game DCBL will withdraw their claim after all their bullying tactics have failed.

Not_A_Hope

@Coupon-mad. The OP has already identified the driver in an email.

In an email my husband wrote to highview and nexus, he identified himself as the driver to try and explain the situation