Highview Parking/DCB Legal — MoneySavingExpert Forum


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.

Source