Highview/DCBLe 20*PCNs PAPLOC now Claimform - Yate Shopping Centre - Main Car Park.

[DragonFly1967]

So, worth doing either way then really. Whether I win in court, or because they just pay me and run away it'll be the best £35 I've spent in a long time  And it'll serve the purpose of costing LowLife parking a few more quid into the bargain.

They've already spent £185 on issuing the claim, which I think is absolutely hilarious, though I don't know if that comes from LowLife Towers or out of DCB (il)Legal's rake off from people that do roll over and pay, especially when threatened with court.

Bullies, the lot of them  but this time, they've picked on someone that's happy to fight 

[brassnecked]

Do the PPC even know DCBL have issued a claim?

[DragonFly1967]

No idea. They're listed as the Claimant, but I don't think for a moment that that means anything.

I've got their phone number, I wonder if I should ring up for a little chat to ask them if they know what DCB (il)Legal are doing in their name. Although my gut feeling is to just leave them to it and let 'em spend as much as possible on their hopeless case, it might be a valuable lesson for them. 

[dx100uk]

counterclaiming costs are not just yours...

you could be liable for their barrister fees even if you win.

 

 

[DragonFly1967]

Hmm, I thought that was only for claims worth >=£10k or personal injury claims over £1k and that in all other cases, costs were limited. Especially on the small claims track.

[dx100uk]

i pretty sure once you issue a counterclaim, even in the small claims track , the gloves are then off...??.

 

 

[DragonFly1967]

I might pop in to the Bristol Justice Centre on Monday for a spot of advice then. Best to check I suppose 

[brassnecked]

Yes get those ducks in a row DCBL might chuck the kitchen sink in with a Counterclaim if it screws their model up.

[FTMDave]

This is hilarious.  Are they seriously suing you for tickets that have been cancelled by POPLA appeals?  Surely they will discontinue at WS stage.

 

I remember you posting about Highview before.  IIRC the tickets are for not displaying a permit although in some of their photos, er, the permit is displayed!  Is that right?  If so, as an alternative to a counterclaim, once you've batted away this claim you could start to sue them for breaches of GDPR, either a mega claim for all the tickets, or one at a time to keep torturing them! 

[brassnecked]

Once they have been tolchocked and claim dismissed as frivolous and vex due to POPLA etc, the GDPR angle is a good one, as never any reason to apply for details at all.

[DragonFly1967]

FTMDave..

 

Almost, I did have one ticket from UKPC for 'not displaying a valid permit' when their own photos showed the permit clearly displayed in the windscreen.

 

That one would have been really funny in court if they decided to press it, but eventually, they seemed to wake up from their own self induced coma and cancelled the ticket.

 

 

Highview use ANPR (on the same site) and these tickets are for parking in a "patrons only" car park for longer than 4 hours, thereby breaching their so called contrick contract.

As you can see, this car park is quite clearly signed as "PATRONS ONLY"  
 

 

But, on the GDPR (or DPA 1998 as it was at the relevant time), after I received the very first ticket from highview, for a parking event on 24/09/2016, I wrote to them to point out that the driver (not me by the way) worked at the shopping centre, the vehicle displayed a staff parking permit, and the driver thereby had supremacy of contract. 

The "appeal" (which it wasn't) was of course denied, and a POPLA code was issued. Appeal made to POPLA, highview withdrew for, and this is the reason they gave to POPLA "After further investigation we have decided to cancel this notice".

Of course, while this was going on, I was still getting the NtK reminders, and I think at least one letter from DRP. And lately, DCBL also issuing a demand for payment, and now DCB (il)Legal are (threatening to) take me to court and the above example is one of the 20 tickets that they're claiming.

There are 3 others that have been won at POPLA and 16 that arrived outside of the time from allowed by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4. Paragraph 9, sub paragraph 5.

But DCB (il)Legal don't seem to actually care about what the law says, they're just seeing £ signs in their eyes. I've even told them that they have no case and to check the full facts of the case with their client, but apparently, they were either uninterested, or (more likely) too greedy to listen.

Edited September 13, 2020 by DragonFly1967

[DragonFly1967]

OK

Just been to our local County Court to ask their advice about a counterclaim. I probably won't risk it to be honest. 

It doesn't really seem fair (to me at least) but if their claim gets struck out by the Judge, I *could* then (depending on the Judge) be landed with their legal representatives costs (capped at £80) plus the hearing fee (whatever that will be).

So, it will actually be cheaper (potentially at least) for me to allow this case to continue without a counterclaim, and then, once I've won this one, issue my own claim against Lowlife parking.

[brassnecked]

Looks like best plan there DF., there is then also Data protection breach if claim was unfounded due to POPLA and obvious display of permit in their evidence contradicting their own POC..

[lookinforinfo]

I agree with Brassnecked on the simple premise that you can make more using GDPR with 20 odd breaches than you could you ever make on a counterclaim.

[DragonFly1967]

As they've now received this (signed for yesterday) I can post it up. My CPR 31.14 request (tweaked slightly from the template).

I think they're going to have particular problems with item 6 on my list, because it doesn't exist.  

I'm expecting the excuse of "but that's not mentioned in our POC" blah, blah, blah. But I don't think that that's going to help them very much if this ever gets anywhere near a Judge.
 

CPR31.14.pdf
 

Edited September 23, 2020 by DragonFly1967

[dx100uk]

proof of annual contract premium paid to date from managing agent/landowner to the PPC.

 

don't forget a CPR can be all but ignored, forcing them to disclose such at the WS stage is the key.

 

 

[DragonFly1967]

I agree that they'll probably ignore the CPR request, or send back some 'fob off' letter, most seem to do that.

 

But if it does get as far as court (I'm still sceptical) I'll be able to show the Judge that I (a non professional solicitor) at least, did everything correctly. 

[DragonFly1967]

Reply today for the 31.14

Some pictures of signage, miraculously, not showing the "staff parking" signs. And apparently "The Contract" wasn't mentioned in their POC so I can't have that.

 

Quote

4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The Contract entitles C to damages.

Post #18

Yeah, my bad, the POC doesn't mention "the contract" at all 

I wish I could be a 'legal professional' like wot they clearly are 

[dx100uk]

well ofcourse they will have to disclose the contract and proof of annual payment to date and covering to date in their WS.

 

 

[DragonFly1967]

Yeah, I get that, but it's just the fact that they're so blatant as to deny that the POC mentions a contract when it quite clearly does. I will be mentioning that in my WS. Well, it'd be rude not to  

[lookinforinfo]

Perhaps they haven't got a contract.....

[brassnecked]

or its expired and nobody has bothered to boot the fleecers off.

[BankFodder]

open

[DragonFly1967]

Thanks BF.

OK, the final update on this saga. Partial Success. Not exactly the outcome I wanted, but it is what it is  

This ended up as a telephone hearing because of the virus, which also didn't (in my opinion) help.


14 of the 20 tickets were dismissed, and Highview (as the Claimant) were pretty much told that it was unreasonable for them to even attempt to claim on them, as they were all out of time and under POFA and the BPA CoP, the keeper could not be liable.

They won (ish) on the other 6. They were claiming £80 for the PCN plus £70 "contractual costs" (debt collection) for each ticket. The Judge dismissed the £70 on each ticket as it was not itemised either on any of their signage or anywhere in the POC or their 150 page! Witness Statement.

The Judge said that they were only allowed on the other 6 because all I had was "hearsay evidence" of the Staff Parking permit being displayed, as I did not include (in my bundle) a witness statement from the driver of the vehicle (who was never named). Had that been there, I would have won on the other 6 tickets as well, so, lesson learned on that one.

The Judge also dismissed my arguments on planning permission and advertising consent for the pole mounted ANPR cameras and entrance signage, and the fact that "Staff" are not patrons and there are no displayed T&C's for staff parking. So that was a bit of a blow to my defence.

So, that left me with £480 in PCN's that were upheld.

However, the Claimant also wanted 8% interest, which the Judge reduced to 2% (£30) due to their unreasonable behaviour, and they also wanted their costs of £180 which the Judge also dismissed.

They also wanted the £335 hearing fee, which when I queried it as it's based on the value of the claim, which was no longer for £3,600, was reduced to £220.

Which leaves me with a Judgement against me for £730.


However, the proverbial "fat lady" might be on stage, but she hasn't started signing just yet. I've got one last card to play on this hand, so, we'll see 

[lookinforinfo]

I am sorry to hear that you didn't get a clean sweep with their claims. Perhaps the Judge thought that you might be taking the p.... with the number of times you had fallen foul of their rules.

I see that you still may have something up your sleeve so if you do, perhaps there may be a second string to your bow with their lack of planning permission.

Courts don't appear to bother about the lack of p.p. but there is another angle. As a member of BPA they have to comply with their Code of compliance  which is necessary if Highview are able to get info. from the DVLA. Here is one of BPA's conditions for membership-

 

2.4 When there is relevant legislation and related guidance, this will define the overall standard of conduct for all AOS members. All AOS members must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses. 

 

By not complying with the Code of practice it calls into question their ability to access the DVLA records. You could compound it by saying that the lack of pp in this carpark is not an isolated incident and is a flagrant breach of the Town and Country [advertisements ]regulations as well as the BPA code.

I am surprised that there is a query over whether a staff permit was showing. Surely there were photos from Highview confirming their presence and without those photos it would confirm that they were there. Enough time has elapsed now that you could reveal the driver without any repercussions and get them to aver that the permit was there.