Highview Parking Ltd Claim Form - Defence Help - DCB LEAGAL,

louisnorman

Hi all,

Thanks for all the assistance you provide on these PCN issues. The bailiff letters can be daunting so it’s a relief to know knowledgeable people are willing to help deal with these bullies!   I’m new to the forum and have put together my defence after reading the newbies thread and quite a few Highview court claim defences.

Could someone cast an eye over my defense and let me know if it’s good to go? 

Thanks in advance!.

Summary:

Parking date: 3/1/2024
v5c issue date: 12/1/2024 (moved house)
3 pcn : 11/1/2024, 29/01/2024, and 15/02/2024 (never received)

4 Dcbl letters from Mar - May 2024
3 pcn copy email by collections in May 2024

3 pcn copy email by Nexus (Highview Parking Ltd) in June 2024

2 Dcb leagal letters in June 2024

Not diver, did’t receive 3 pcn , moved house, appealed, complained, replied Letter of Claim, all done.

A claim was issued against you on 02/09/2024

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 09/09/2024 

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 10/09/2024

POC: 

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charges) issued to vehicle xxxxx at xxx Retail Park.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on  3/1/2024

3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions.

4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.02 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

DEFENCE:

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that the driver breached any terms. Further, it is denied that the Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. In contrast, the Claimant presents a cut-and-paste, incoherent, and sparse statement of case. The POC appears to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3, and 16PD7, failing to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action." The Defendant is unable, based on the POC, to understand with certainty the case, allegation(s), or heads of cost being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but not the driver.

3. The Defendant was not the only insured driver of the vehicle photographed, and the Claimant has not proven who was driving. The lack of evidence provided thus far by the Claimant has failed to identify either the driver or the circumstances that day, leaving the Defendant unaware of the issue. The Defendant reserves the right to expand upon the facts if the Claimant supplies any useful evidence.

4. The Defendant’s vehicle (xxx) was at xxx Retail Park on 3/1/2024; however, the Defendant was not the driver. Referring to the POC: all paragraphs are denied. Paragraph 2 references the wrong date. No PCN(s) were "issued on 3/1/2024" (Date of Contravention:  3/1/2024). The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land), and no damages were incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all their allegations.

5. The Defendant did not receive any Parking Charge Notices. The Defendant had recently moved house, and it was entirely the Claimant's fault for using the wrong address. The V5C with the current address was issued on 12/01/2024. Three Parking Charge letters dated 11/1/2024, 29/01/2024, and 15/02/2024 from the Claimant were sent to the old address. The Defendant only became aware of the parking charge upon receiving a Notice of Debt Recovery letter dated 18/03/2024 at the new address from Direct Collections Bailiffs Ltd (DCBL).

6. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

7. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

From ***Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government*** to the end.

KeithP

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.
Particularly this bit...

So it is alleged that the driver 'breached the terms on the signs (the contract)'.

And that allegation is then repeated - 'Reason: Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions'.

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

This will be an easy win.

KeithP

louisnorman said:

A claim was issued against you on 02/09/2024

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 09/09/2024 

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 10/09/2024

With a Claim Issue Date of 2nd September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 7th October 2024 to file a Defence.

That's over 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'.

louisnorman

KeithP said:

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.
Particularly this bit...

So it is alleged that the driver 'breached the terms on the signs (the contract)'.

And that allegation is then repeated - 'Reason: Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions'.

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

This will be an easy win.

Thanks for your comments

louisnorman

Any corrections with the Defence? Should I use the Standard defence or defence by @hharry100  template here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80343627/#Comment_80343627

Thanks .

Coupon-mad

Use the hharry one. This will be easy.

How come they have only claimed for one PCN?

I'm worried about the other two going to your old address still.  Have you contacted Highview and DCB about the other two and made sure your old address is 'erased' from all records?

Were all three PCNs 'POFA worded' or have you not retrieved that post?

Le_Kirk

You need to send a Data Rectification Notice to the DPO of highview and DCB informing them of your address for service and to ERASE any old data they hold on you.
Highview use this address: -

dpo@groupnexus.co.uk

DCB Legal use this one: -
dpocontact@dcblegal.co.uk 

louisnorman

Le_Kirk said:

You need to send a Data Rectification Notice to the DPO of highview and DCB informing them of your address for service and to ERASE any old data they hold on you.
Highview use this address: -

dpo@groupnexus.co.uk

DCB Legal use this one: -
dpocontact@dcblegal.co.uk 

Thanks for your information, already done in May 2024. 

Coupon-mad

louisnorman said:

Le_Kirk said:

You need to send a Data Rectification Notice to the DPO of highview and DCB informing them of your address for service and to ERASE any old data they hold on you.
Highview use this address: -

dpo@groupnexus.co.uk

DCB Legal use this one: -
dpocontact@dcblegal.co.uk 

Thanks for your information, already done in May 2024. 

For all PCNs? If so, good move.

Please answer my questions above

louisnorman

Coupon-mad said:

louisnorman said:

Le_Kirk said:

You need to send a Data Rectification Notice to the DPO of highview and DCB informing them of your address for service and to ERASE any old data they hold on you.
Highview use this address: -

dpo@groupnexus.co.uk

DCB Legal use this one: -
dpocontact@dcblegal.co.uk 

Thanks for your information, already done in May 2024. 

For all PCNs? If so, good move.

Please answer my questions above

Thank you very much for everyone's enthusiastic help.  I was very busy yesterday and need a little time to sort it out. I'm sorry for the late reply. 

1) I will draft the hharry one

2) 3 PCN to the old address 

3) Already emailed Nexus (Highview) to give them the new address in May 2024

4) I’m not sure if all three PCNs 'POFA worded' 

louisnorman

Coupon-mad said:

Use the hharry one. This will be easy.

How come they have only claimed for one PCN?

I'm worried about the other two going to your old address still.  Have you contacted Highview and DCB about the other two and made sure your old address is 'erased' from all records?

Were all three PCNs 'POFA worded' or have you not retrieved that post?

I think these are  'POFA worded'

Now the hharry one version Defence.  Anything need improve? Thanks 

DEFENCE

1.  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 in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant POC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

[INSERTED 4 CEL V CHAN TRANSCRIPT PICS]

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. In contrast, the Claimant presents a cut-and-paste, incoherent, and sparse statement of case. The POC appears to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3, and 16PD7, failing to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action." The Defendant is unable, based on the POC, to understand with certainty the case, allegation(s), or heads of cost being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, but not the driver.

5.The Defendant was not the only insured driver of the vehicle in question, and the Claimant has not provided any proof of who was driving. The lack of evidence provided thus far by the Claimant has failed to identify either the driver or the circumstances that day, leaving the Defendant unaware of the issue. The Defendant reserves the right to amend or expand upon this Defence should the Claimant provide further evidence.

6. The Defendant’s vehicle (DxxxxxX) was at xxx Retail Park on 3/1/2024; however, the Defendant was not the driver. Referring to the POC: all paragraphs are denied. Paragraph 2 references the wrong date. No PCN was 'issued on 3/1/2024’ (Date of Contravention: 3/1/2024). The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land), and no damages were incurred. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all their allegations.

7. The Defendant did not receive any Parking Charge Notices. The Defendant had recently moved house, and it was the Claimant's responsibility to ensure they used the correct address. The V5C with the updated address was issued on 12/01/2024. Three Parking Charge letters dated 11/1/2024, 29/01/2024, and 15/02/2024, were sent to the Defendant's old address. The Defendant only became aware of the parking charge upon receiving a Notice of Debt Recovery letter dated 18/03/2024 at the new address from Direct Collections Bailiffs Ltd (DCBL).

8. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

9. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

(continued as per Coupon-mad's suggestions)