Jump to content

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

Recommended Posts

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 😉

  • Thanks 1

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

Posted Images

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.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...