Jump to content


Highview Parking ANPR PCN Claimform - Urban Exchange Manchester


 Share

Recommended Posts

That is superb - well done.

 

I've corrected a couple of typos in your 7 - Unfair PCN section.

 

5.2 is probably in the wrong place in the WS but it doesn't really matter, as long as the point is hammered home elsewhere too.

 

Yes, you just need to add the last two sections now.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can copy this word for word as your last section.  It's the same story every case - the PPCs make up extra charges they're not entitled to - what we call the Unicorn Food Tax.  Just sort the numbering out.

 

11.   Double Recovery:


11.1.   As well as the original £100 parking charge and £85 allowed court/legal costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £65.


11.2.   PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper”. Which in this case is £100.

 

11.3   The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is also quite clear that the maximum amount recoverable is £100.  Government ministers and government web pages explaining the Act refer to extra charges as "a rip off".


11.4.   Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.


11.5.   Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since the sum £85 was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of all the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court V Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practise continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (...) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”


11.6.   In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating “It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for a addi8onal sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.


11.7.   The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.


11.8.   It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).


11.9.   The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the PoFA AND THE CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The conclusion of your WS is out of date, it should now be:

 

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that
proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or
causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth
without an honest belief in its truth.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just seen your WS and theirs. 

The fact that you were not the driver and the PCN is not compliant is more than sufficient to have the case thrown out. You cannot go for breach of GDPR at the moment as you have not told them that you were the driver. However if they do not withdraw now that they have seen your WS , then they will have breached your  GDPR.

And I would bring that to the Judges's attention should the case proceed.

You are quite right about their WS being unacceptable -they should produce the actual contract [or a copy].

 

There shouldn't be any conversation about the overcharges since the case should have already been won by you. Especially as the sign at the entrance cannot offer a contract since there are no T&Cs mentioned at all so all they have is an offer to treat. In any case the signage inside says 1 hour 30 minutes free or even 2 hours free if you didn't see the other one . They have not shown any 1 hour parking signs so they have shot themselves in the foot. 

 

A total waste of time taking you to Court. I would ask for exemplary damages from the Judge pointing out that the case had no hope of being anything but a win for you and a complete waste of the Court's time as well as a breach of your GDPR.

 

Good Luck -not that you will need it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you both! It's a relief to hear that I'm getting close to the finish line. 

 

I will update my witness statement today and repost in due course. 

 

Thanks again for your help so far!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope to send this by the end of the night, this is what I have. Any thing to add before I send the final version? 

 

Do I just include the Legal Team and the court? I can't find the email address for Highview Parking. 

 

Note: The numbering is off below as i have removed the section that contains PID. 

 

1.     Background

 

2.1  Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 1st of November 2022 following the vehicle being parked at Urban Exchange, M4 on the 22nd of August 2022 which is 71 days after the alleged contravention. The PCN (Exhibit 1, Page 😎 clearly states the Date of Notice was the 27th of October which is 66 days after the event. This contradicts Point 8 of their witness statement where it is explained the Issue date was the 22nd of August 2022, this is incorrect.

2.      Contract

3.1 No Locus Standi, I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives Highview a right to bring claims in their own name, no contract has been produced either after my CPR request or in the Claimants Witness Statement (a letter saying a contract exists is not the same thing as producing a contract).

Definition of “Relevant contract” From PoFA (Protection of Freedoms Act) 2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-

(a) the owner or occupier of the land; or

(b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44

 

 

For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.

The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between Highway Parking and the motorist. Even if “1 Hour Free Parking” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.

3.2        As stipulated in Exhibit 1 (Pages 13-18) sent by DCB Legal following the defendants CPR request the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows 1 hour 30 minutes. The defendant puts it to the claimant a request for strict proof when the signage changed to 1 hour as the DCB Legal’s letter stipulated 1 hour 30 minutes was indeed the time permitted at the time defendant parked and included as a letter in Exhibit 1.

3.     Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed

4.1        At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, either in response to the CPR request from myself, or in their Witness Statement.

4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Town Centre Securities) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

The Claimant has produced a one page “Witness Statement” Exhibit 1(Page 7), but this does not seem to be a contract. It certainly does not give them permission to litigate on behalf of the Town Centre Securities.

4.3        Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.

4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.

4.     Unfair PCN

5.1        The PCN provided as part of the Claimants Witness Statement does not establish what the defendant was being charged for. This de facto removes any chance for the defendant to appeal as there is no explanation for the charge. 

 

5.2        This also applies to the subsequent PCNs dated on the 13/11/2017 and 30/11/2017. 

 

5.3        The Claimant did not respect PAPLOC and never sent a Letter Before Claim

 

5.4        It is also unfair to delay litigation for so long and claim nearly five years' interest.

 

5.     No Keeper Liability

 

6.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.

 

6.2        The claimant did not send the PCN in sufficient time according to the POFA 2012. The defendant received the PCN on the 1st of November 2017 which is 71 days after the contravention. The PCN clearly states it did not get posted until the 27th of October which is 66 days after the event.

 

 

 

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

 

The notice must be given by-

(a)   handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

 

(b)   sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

 

(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

  

6.3          At the time of receiving the PCN the defendant telephoned the Supermarket and Gym, both said that they are unable to do anything about it retrospectively.

 

6.4        When the defendant requested evidence from DCB Legal I received Exhibit 1(Pages 13-18). This illustrates signage that there was 1 hour 30 minutes of free parking accompanied along side this was the PCN’s that were sent, explaining the duration of the drivers stay was 1 hour 16 minutes. 14 minutes within the free parking time permitted.

 

6.     No Breach of Contract

 

7.1        When the defendant left the car park, they felt they had respected the signage and the PCN did not state what the defendant had done wrong.

 

7.2        Highview's solicitors' reply to the CPR request shows signage indicating a limit of 1 hour 30 minutes free parking which the defendant respected, suddenly after nearly five years Highview have ambushed the defendant with a new story that there was only one-hour free parking.

 

7.     Double Recovery

 

8.1        As well as the original £95 parking charge and £50 allowed court/legal costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.

 

8.2        PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper”. Which in this case is £95.

 

8.3        The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is also quite clear that the maximum amount recoverable is £100.  Government ministers and government web pages explaining the Act refer to extra charges as "a rip off".

 

8.4        Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.

 

8.5        Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since the sum £85 was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of all the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court V Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practise continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (...) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”

 

8.6        In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating “It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for a addi8onal sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

 

8.7        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.

 

8.8        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).

 

8.9        The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the PoFA AND THE CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

 

8.     In Conclusion

 

9.1        I believe the Claimant has got use to intimidation tactics and has got greedy. I believe the truth of the manor is the Claimant has used bullying tactics successfully for too long and is therefore assured that innocent drivers will fall into the trap of paying rather than going through the hours it takes to defend themselves. In the process, wasting the time of the Court, the time of the Defendant and everyone else who has advised the Defendant, out of sheer decency to help have a fair hearing and see justice delivered.

 

9.2        I am still in disbelief that I am being heard in this court, defending myself nearly 5 years after receiving a charge through my door. I have had to spend weeks’ worth of my life studying the letter of the law in order to defend myself from this ridiculous attempt at a swindle.

 

9.3        I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just knocked off work, read what you've written, and ... it is superb.  Well done.

 

I know you've already sent it but I am for one can't see how it could have been improved further.

 

I know you e-mailed the court.  What did you do/are you going to do about Highview's copy?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent well done captures the issues very well.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will give the court a ring tomorrow and just confirm they have received my witness statement along with my contact number

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea.

 

As the fleecers nominated DCBL on the claim form to represent them you've done all you need to.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received a letter from DCB requesting i send them the details of the driver. They made it clear that I would be cross examined in court and if found to be lying i could be in contempt of court. 

 

Am i obliged to reply to this letter? How should i proceed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

cross examined, yea ok, that doesn't happen, they've been watching too much US TV..willy waving more doubt to intimidate and harass you to give in the towel... bet it would be a local court rep anyway not DCB(l).

 

 

scan up the letter please to PDf

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're just trying to put the frighteners on.  Ignore them.

 

If you tell the truth you have nothing to fear in court.  Simply tell the truth if you have to speak - you weren't the driver, you are not going to tell them who the driver was, it's not your fault if they can't abide by the timescales of the Protection of Freedoms Act which even a primary school child would have no problems understanding & respecting.

 

 

  • Like 2

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Both,

 

I attended the dispute resolution hearing this morning. The matter was not resolved and has been referred to a final hearing.

 

The courts representative went through both the witness statements and made some initial comments on the evidence. I have bullet pointed below:

 

  • Claimant's Legal was questioned why the matter was taken this far as there was no keeper liability. They would need to prove this in front of a judge.
  • Then I was asked if I was the driver to which I said no I wasn't. The court representative mentioned that simply stating that may not be enough in court and asked if anyone else was insured to drive the car. I said yes other people have been insure to drive the car in the past, such as friends and family members. I also mentioned that as it had been so long ago that i would find it hard to confirm who was driving. 
  • They then quizzed the Claimant's Legal that no evidence had been provided of a contract in place between Highview and the landowners and that stating one is in place wouldn't be enough. It was recommended that they provide evidence on this before the final hearing.

The final hearing will be scheduled for 4 weeks from now at the earliest. It was advised that the contract be sent at least 14 days before the hearing date so it would give me time to add comment.

 

They offered me a resolutions but I advised unless the claimant was willing to walk away from the case I wouldn't be accepting a reduce offer.

 

Be interested to hear your thoughts on the above especially regarding point 2.

 

Thanks! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JackD13 said:

Hi Both,

 

I attended the dispute resolution hearing this morning. The matter was not resolved and has been referred to a final hearing.

 

The courts representative went through both the witness statements and made some initial comments on the evidence. I have bullet pointed below:

 

  • Claimant's Legal was questioned why the matter was taken this far as there was no keeper liability. They would need to prove this in front of a judge.
  • Then I was asked if I was the driver to which I said no I wasn't. The court representative mentioned that simply stating that may not be enough in court and asked if anyone else was insured to drive the car. I said yes other people have been insure to drive the car in the past, such as friends and family members. I also mentioned that as it had been so long ago that i would find it hard to confirm who was driving. 
  • They then quizzed the Claimant's Legal that no evidence had been provided of a contract in place between Highview and the landowners and that stating one is in place wouldn't be enough. It was recommended that they provide evidence on this before the final hearing.

The final hearing will be scheduled for 4 weeks from now at the earliest. It was advised that the contract be sent at least 14 days before the hearing date so it would give me time to add comment.

 

They offered me a resolutions but I advised unless the claimant was willing to walk away from the case I wouldn't be accepting a reduce offer.

 

Be interested to hear your thoughts on the above especially regarding point 2.

 

Thanks! 

It is their job to prove who the driver was  not yours to prove you weren't.

Now that you hav e  averred that you were not the driver they may well cut their losses and withdraw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit bemused as to why there was this extra hearing.

 

Still, Highview have been told to supply evidence and I bet they don't.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...