Highview/DRP reactivated claim after 2.5 years - ** PCN CANCELLED **

[RT1970]

Hello all

 

I will probably not be the only one to receive a demand from Highview/DRP for an old parking fine which they never followed through at the time of issue because I disputed the terms of the contract. However, in the post-Beavis era I guess they are now going through their records and restarting proceedings in dormant cases.

 

So, quick question - for a parking fine issued in 2013 can they suddenly restart proceedings now (and demand payment in 7 days)?

 

If they can, what is the best way to deal with them? I no longer have any of the original paperwork.

 

I did inform them at the time of the incident that I was not driving the vehicle when it was parked but they continued to pursue me as the keeper in any case. If we can no longer rely on unfair contract terms (this was a free car park and a 10 minute overstay from what I recall) then what is the best strategy?

 

Thanks for all help and advice.

 

RT1970

[Bazooka Boo]

AFAIK, they are way out of time, and are chancing their arm at conning the uneducated out of money they don't owe!

 

You're right, you're not the only one to have received these begging letters.

 

As it's from the powerless DRP, IMO ignore it but report them to the relevant authorities for their trouble.

[RT1970]

Thank you

 

At the time they sent the initial notice I informed them that I was not the driver but they chased me anyway.

 

 

I also raised the unfair contract terms defense and asked to see their contract with the landowner.

 

 

I also asked the landowner for the contract.

Neither replied.

 

 

Also the signs mentioned a fine of £60 but the initial charge was £85.

 

 

So for lots of reasons they were on a hiding to nothing.

 

Under what terms do I report them?

[ericsbrother]

they can demand all they want, it wont make it any more legit

Ignore DR+ as they are just rentathreats and like all of the others are misquoting the PE v Beavis decision that says £85 is not unconscionable as a penalty clause in a contract rather than proving what monies have actually been lost as a result of the breach by the motorist.

It doent mean that the parking companies actually have a case, just that if they do then £85 quid covers it.

In your case they undoubtedly dont have a claim that you are liable for.

[ericsbrother]

Forgot to say, if they did have a claim they would be suing you, not paying some muppet £15 to write to you with a load of cobblers

[RT1970]

Thanks for the additional info.

 

I've just had a quick look in the filing cabinet and in fact I do have the original correspondence. The sign in the car park said the charge was £85 for overstaying but the initial NTK demanded £90 reduced to £60 for immediate payment. Then there was no contract with the landowner produced on request although when I replied it was the Beavis defence I used.

 

I will ignore. But, one problem I have is that they are writing to an old address. I moved in March so my 12 months of post redirection are almost up. Should I tell them my new address, just in case they do issue proceedings? I don't want to be one of these unfortunates who loses in court because I wasn't aware of the hearing.

 

Cheers

 

RT1970

[dx100uk]

hope they didn't use the word fine on their signs?

 

 

dx

[RT1970]

Unfortunately not - 'parking charge'

[dx100uk]

then why have you used the word twice then...

 

 

its a speculative invoice

for supposedly breaking some kind of implied parking contract you knew nowt about.

 

 

dx

[RT1970]

Ah yes... an honest mistake guv

 

I will ignore the speculative invoice.

 

Out of interest - what applicable laws or codes of conduct are they breaking by chasing up dormant cases?

[armadillo71]

They have six years to chase you until it is statute barred.

 

Did they not respond to your original appeal?

 

If not then the complaint should be made to the BPA about not allowing you acces to POPLA.

 

Highveiw don't do court and DR+ can't. But if your change of address is not ideal. So you could write a 'debt is denied letter, refer back to your principle', with your correct address on. And get proof of postage.

[ericsbrother]

I agree with writing to them from your new address saying that any debt is denied.

 

 

That way they cant try and sneak in a court claim at your old addy

and claim that is the correct address for service of documents as you ahve told them differently.

 

 

Ashley Cohen ignores these niceties of law though so beware anyone getting a new letter from CEL/DEAL

[RT1970]

Thanks everyone for the advice so far. I have written to them today solely to make sure they are aware of my new address so they can't get a default by serving papers at my old address, and I have reiterated that I deny the debt.

 

One thing I wanted to check out is the wording of POFA 2012. The letter I got demands not just the amount on the original PCN but also various late payment charges etc so is now double the amount shown on the signs in the car park.

 

According to POFA 2012 Schedule 4 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted):

 

"(5) The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)© or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified)."

 

Does that not mean that even if the original parking charge can be enforced, then the top-ups cannot?

[armadillo71]

 

Does that not mean that even if the original parking charge can be enforced, then the top-ups cannot?

 

 

Correct. Well researched...

[RT1970]

But that surely means that most if not all of these historic cases are unenforceable, solely on the basis of the additional fees, and further that the additional fees are illegal and the companies issuing them could be prosecuted?

[armadillo71]

But that surely means that most if not all of these historic cases are unenforceable, solely on the basis of the additional fees, and further that the additional fees are illegal and the companies issuing them could be prosecuted?

 

Well they would have to take you to court, put their case in front of the judge and rebut your evidence, and then win to make the charge(s) enforceable....

 

What would they be prosecuted for out of interest?

[RT1970]

What would they be prosecuted for out of interest?

 

This might be my misunderstanding but I thought that the liability for a parking charge was always against the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident and only after POFA 2012 were the companies legitimately able to pursue the keeper. (Until POFA 2012 it was possible to escape these charges simply by claiming not to have been the driver at the time and challenging the parking company to prove otherwise). If the companies can only pursue the keeper under POFA 2012 then they must be bound by that legislation, and if that legislation says they can only ever claim the amount on the PCN and no more, then on what legal basis can they add punitive charges? They could be prosecuted by Trading Standards for misrepresentation at the very least I would have thought.

[Bazooka Boo]

one problem I have is that they are writing to an old address. I moved in March so my 12 months of post redirection are almost up. RT1970

 

They will already know your new address, as the RM 'redirect service' is shared with DCA's to track goneaways, so any suggestion that these muppets would try and obtain a CCJ by default, would be extremely dumb on their part, and easily defended anyway when you make the DJ aware of RM's collaboration with DCA's.

[ericsbrother]

well Bazooka boo, as stated some try their luck and have suceeded in getting a CCJ by deliberately using an old address for service of documents. When this has been subject of a N244 challenge the parking co always loses but how many people just pay up in panic or ignorance? It is all about creating a paper trail to destroy any claim that they didnt know or were using the addy given by the DVLA.

RT1970, you know that no charges can be added but you are also forgetting that the dca 's are not honest brokers and have no say in anything and that they make their money by deception so reporting them to TS for doing what they do will not raise an eyebrow as there is no relationship between you and them. Anyone can send out begging letters, I do it all the time. One day I will put stamps on them so they have a better chance of getting there.

[Bazooka Boo]

Agreed, a paper trail of evidence is definitely the best way to defeat them.

[RT1970]

I've done a bit of digging at the land registry tonight.

 

The car park in question is operated on behalf of a well known supermarket, but neither Highview nor the supermarket own the land. The land is owned by a property company and the supermarket leases a unit from them. The lease presumably allows them to use the adjacent land as a car park. I have searched for the property company at Companies House and although their accounts are up to date they are listed as 'dormant'.

 

BPA code of practice: "7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges."

 

So, it seems even if the supermarket invited Highview to operate the car park on their behalf they are not agents of the landowner (merely leaseholders, along with other businesses with units adjacent to the same car park) and cannot give them authorisation - no wonder they wouldn't send me the contract either!

 

Am I correct in presuming that unless Highview can provide a bona fide copy of their contract with this property company (or an authorised agent) that was in force in 2013, then every ticket they issue on this site is invalid?

 

I know this was an important factor in VCS v Ibbotson, but I'm not clear how it breaches contract law if the BPA CoP is voluntary....

[ericsbrother]

yes, you are correct. If it wasnt the case estate agents would sell your house and keep all the money and then charge you for living there.

If a parking co wants to follow that path it would have to show not only that the law was being obeyed but its own operational methods were equal to or better then the CoP that it signed up to. That is one of the provisions of theuse of the DVLA database, they must abide by the rules, so you know where to complain if they dont, copy to your MP.

However, Highview will tell lies about their contract and cite "commercial confidentiality" but that has been seen through so look up past cases and you will find a court decision you can then quote should it be necessary. if they still fancy a day out at your expense you can show that you have pointed all of this out to themand they still went ahead so the claim would be vexatious.

[RT1970]

Blimey - I've just received an email from the BPA (to whom I copied my latest correspondence with Highview, along with a summary of all the reasons I thought the PCN was incorrect/unenforceable) and they say Highview have decided to cancel the PCN and have written to me to confirm this.

 

It's a relief not to have to go to court, even though I think my defence is rock solid and they would have been stupid to try it on.

 

I'm happy to post a redacted copy of the letter I sent if the wording would maybe help others in a similar position? I'd also like to make a donation to the forum running costs if a mod/admin can post below or PM me and explain what to do, because the advice received has (as always) been very helpful and reassuring.

 

Thanks again to everyone

[honeybee13]

Hello there, that's great news. Well done to you and the people who advised you. I think a redacted copy of the correspondence could be useful, it's always good to see how these people operate.

 

Thank you very much for the offer of a donation. If you look at my signature, you should see a link. Otherwise, there is a red link in the dark grey strip towards the top of this page.

 

I'll alter your thread title to show the result.

 

HB

[armadillo71]

Well done!

 

Yes, post up your letter please. It can only help the cause...