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

[DragonFly1967]

Well, finally, after almost 4½ YEARS  of PCN's from LowView Parking, and countless letters from them, DR-, SCS Law and DCBL I have finally received a 'Letter of Claim' from "DCB Legal" (well, someone is getting ideas above their station!)
Maybe I'll finally get my all expenses paid day out at Bristol Justice Centre 

I have until 12th July to respond to their 'Letter of Claim' according to them. I'm just wondering in how many different ways I can tell them to go and take a very long walk off of a short pier  and that if they think they've got a snowball in hell's chance, to bring their A game to court with them.

Their claiming that I owe (Highview, via them of course) £3,000 and that I must complete their 'reply form'. I've got some really bad news for them 

[DragonFly1967]

Oh, I will be responding. I know I have to, (CYA and all that ), but I most certainly won't be using the reply form that they seem to be insisting that I use. Cheeky swines!

I'm really just wondering how savage to be, do I keep it businesslike or go full on, give them both barrels and tear them a new one?

Edited June 26, 2020 by DragonFly1967

[DragonFly1967]

This is what I am going with by way of reply to their letter of claim.

 

Quote

Dear DCBL/DCB Legal et al.

 

Thank you for your “LETTER OF CLAIM” dated 12^th June.

 

I strongly recommend that you consult your client and ask them for the full details of the vehicle mentioned in your LOC, including those cases where a POPLA appeal was made, the reasons given for those appeals, and your clients reasons for withdrawing in all POPLA appeals that I submitted bar one, which they lost (although that may have been for a previous vehicle, also owned by myself at the time).

Of the Highview references mentioned above, should you wish to bring a claim, 16 of them are fatally flawed, at least 2 of which will see you in very hot water in court as I appealed and won (by way of your clients withdrawal) at POPLA. I would have assumed that you’d already know this, seeing as how you’ve been legally trained and I presume, passed numerous law exams. Unless you’ve had the tea boy write to me by mistake?

As the County Courts work on a Balance of Probability, and as 16 of the 20 are fatally flawed, it would be fair to assume that the remaining 4 tickets are also defective in some way even if there was a contract formed between your client and either the driver or myself as keeper. Which I can assure you is not the case.

 

Once you have read, acted upon and understood the above, if you and/or your client wish to go on and waste a Judges time by proceeding to issue a claim, then I shall look forward to meeting your representatives on the day.

I would suggest that you have them “bring a toothbrush”.
 

 

Yours without regard.


Recorded Keeper of the vehicle at the time.

 

[DragonFly1967]

Well, I thought it best to be a little bit restrained as, in the unlikely event that this goes anywhere near a court, I'd be happy to produce that, rather than one containing all of the rude words that I can think of and several more than I'd have to Google 

Their LOC is laughable really (for reasons that I won't go in to on a public forum (you never know who's reading it)) but if they do decide to take this to court, they are going to loose, spectacularly! 

 

[DragonFly1967]

The letter is written correctly, it's just the contents of it.

I'm just going to let them waste as much of their time and money as I can, so I don't want to give them too many clues. If they work it out before they spend any more money it won't be anywhere near as much fun  

[DragonFly1967]

Just to keep the thread updated.

This is what got sent to DCB Legal in the end, and, just for peace of mind and to be able to prove to a Judge that they did receive it, it was sent as 'signed for' which they did this morning. Have it!

 

Dear DCBL/DCB Legal et al.

 

Thank you for your “LETTER OF CLAIM” dated 12th June.

Rather unfortunately for you, I was not born yesterday. Therefore, please pay very close attention to the rest of this letter and do your own research into the matters raised herein before taking any further steps.

 

I strongly recommend that you consult with your client and ask them for the full details of the vehicle mentioned in your LOC. I’d be tempted to ask them for everything they have as they’re quite clearly not giving you all of the information that you’re going to need should you wish to continue.

Of the 20 Highview references mentioned above, should you wish to bring a claim, as you’re the legal experts (allegedly) you should already be aware that 16 of them are fatally flawed. I’m not going to give you any information as to why as I’m quite sure that you’ll be able to figure it out for yourselves before you waste any more of your own time, and more likely, your clients’ money.

Suffice to say that I had imagined that knowing the full facts of a case, before sending out a Letter of Claim would be the most basic of prerequisites. I’m sure that your Law Professor(s) would be very disappointed in your lack of even simple understanding of the law. “Must Try Harder” will be, I’m sure, a familiar phrase to you.

Unless you’ve had the tea boy write to me by mistake?

As the County Courts work on a balance of probability basis, and as 16 of the 20 are fatally flawed, I think it would be fair to assume that the remaining 4 tickets are also defective in some way even if there had been a contract formed between your client and either the driver or myself as keeper. Which I can assure you is not the case.

 

Once you have read, acted upon and understood the above, if you and/or your client wish to go on and waste Court time by proceeding to issue a claim, then I shall look forward to meeting your representative(s) on the day.

I would suggest that you have them “bring a toothbrush” (see VCS vs IBBOTSON (1SE09849) for details). District Judges do rather tend to take a very dim view of being lied to and having their time wasted. I can’t imagine why.

I think that probably your best (and cheapest) course of action would be to write to me one final time to notify me that all matters have been dropped by yourselves and/or the claimant and to apologise for wasting my time.

As your client has no doubt instructed you in this matter, I shall also be making a formal written complaint to the British Parking Association for your clients breach(es) of the BPA CoP for AOS members. I dare say that your client will be hearing from their trade association in due course.

I will also be writing the DVLA to raise matters with them for your clients breach of KADOE via the EDI.
 

lil ole me
Recorded Keeper of the vehicle at the time.
                                                           

 

                                                                                                                                    CC: Highview Parking.

......................

 

 

Not that the letter two matters will make the slightest bit of difference of course.

One must be realistic after all 

[DragonFly1967]

Just a quick update for this.

I've had a letter from LowLife parking this morning "rejecting my appeal" (yeah, you know, the one I never made)  

apparently, I'm "out of time".

Who knew 

At the bottom of the letter it quite clearly states:

"Registered Office: Ranger House, Queens Road, Barnet, EN5 4DJ".

 

The only problem with that is that their registered office address changed to 10 Flask Walk. London. NW3 1HE on 25th April 2019.  I can feel a complaint to Companies House coming on 

[DragonFly1967]

Annnnd, an update. The saga continues.

I've had a letter from DCB Legal this morning...

 

Dear Sir

We write to you in response to your recent correspondence.

You state that 16 out of 20 Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) are flawed and that our Client is aware of this. We have consulted with our Client and they are unaware of what you are referring to.

Please clarify the reasons you dispute the debt so that this can be addressed.

And my reply, which is just about to go in the post...

Dear DCB Legal.

 

Thank you for your letter dated 31st July. And here I was labouring under the assumption that you are competent, qualified, professional solicitors.
 

Your client may have an excuse, they’re just parking snakes, but as so-called solicitors, you should know better.
 

On that note, I did not say that you’re clients were aware that 16 (now actually 18 after further research on my part) were fatally flawed. I’d be pleasantly surprised if your clients were even aware of which way was up.
 

What I actually said was…

 

“Of the 20 Highview references mentioned above, should you wish to bring a claim, as you’re the legal experts (allegedly) you should already be aware that 16 of them are fatally flawed.”
 

I’m not doing your work for you beyond suggesting that you read and inwardly digest the full contents of the Protection of Freedoms Act. Particularly Schedule 4. If you can’t work it out for yourselves and believe that you have a case, please do proceed to issue a claim. I’m looking forward to it already. Unless you work it out, that’s the only way that you’re going to see my hand.
 

If you’ve not got the guts to issue a claim, please stop writing to me (apart from answering my SAR (already sent)) as I’m getting a little fed up of wasting my time. Clearly unlike yourselves, I have far better things to be getting on with.
 

Just in case it may have escaped your attention, or intellect, I am not someone that you can bully, threaten or cajole in to paying either yourselves or your client.
 

The only way that either of you are getting even a penny out of me is to take me to court and win.
 

Good luck with that.
 

Signed, Keeper.

[DragonFly1967]

Oh well, too late now.

 

They probably won't notice anyway, I don't think that they're that intelligent. 

[DragonFly1967]

Whoa! GAME ON!

A claim form has arrived in this mornings post.

Once they get to the stage of actually seeing my defence, I really do hope that they're that stupid & greedy that they take this to hearing.

 I can feel a grand day out coming on 

[DragonFly1967]

OK then, here we go...

 

Name of the Claimant : Highview Parking Limited

 

Claimants Solicitors: DCB (il)Legal

 

Date of issue – 09/09/2020

 

Date for AOS - 27/09/2020 by my reckoning

 

Date to submit Defence - 11/10/2020 (so 09/10/2020 by my reckoning)

 

What is the claim for –

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle (Registration) at Yate Shopping Centre - Main Car Park.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 24/09/2016, 31/12/2016, 05/05/2017, 03/06/2017, 16/07/2017, 22/07/2017, 28/07/2017, 01/09/2017, 25/10/2017, 26/07/2018, 02/02/2018, 13/03/2018, 16/04/2018, 28/05/2018, 25/06/2018, 26/06/2018, 08/08/2018, 17/08/2018, 12/09/2018, 13/09/2018.

3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract). thus incurring the PCN(s).
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.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £3000 being to total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.66 until judgement or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees.


Grammatical errors are as typed. Legal professionals indeed.

Edited September 11, 2020 by DragonFly1967

[DragonFly1967]

Oh I hope so brassnecked, I really do. 

Of the 20 tickets that they're claiming for, 4 were appealed to POPLA and those appeals were won by way of Highview withdrawing (already confirmed by POPLA by way of an SAR). And the other 16 NtK's all arrived outside of the time allowed by POFA, some of them 60+ days after the parking event, and on a few occasions, they didn't even ask the DVLA for keeper details until after the time allowed by POFA for the NtK to arrive. KADOE access after 23 days, 57 days. 58 days, 64 days. 

The Judge is going to crucify the poor schmuck that comes to represent them. I can see it coming. It's just a shame that they can't.

Add to that if I decide to make a counterclaim for an unspecified sum at the judges discretion and it could be a very expensive day out for Highview. Perhaps I'll send DCBL to enforce if they don't pay 

Edited September 11, 2020 by DragonFly1967

[DragonFly1967]

brassnecked.

Oh boy, are they going to be disappointed.

 

Apart from 1,

I have all of the NtK's, reminders, letters from DR-, SCS Law, DCBL and DCB Legal.

Which of course, I'll be asking for again under 31.14 (because I can).

And because they've mentioned "The Contract" in their POC, I want that too, along with a few other bits.

And if they decide not to play ball, I may apply for an order for disclosure to the court, and I'll also be looking out for anything that may fall under 31.23 while I'm at it.

They want to play hardball, that's fine with me  

Each of the NtK's I have  is dated as to when it was received and noted as to whether or not an appal was made to Highview and/or POPLA, whereas most (as I said above) cripple their own case by just looking at the dates.

I also have a copy from the DVLA of when my details were accessed via KADOE, and a spreadsheet with all of the relevant data too, just for good measure  

dx. I dare say that it's the usual numbers game. Issue enough claim forms and a large percentage of people will cave and be on the phone desperate to sell them their children. At some point they'll go back to the client and say "look how many people we got to pay up, aren't we brilliant!" whilst forgetting to mention anyone that squares up and fights.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I do decide to issue a counterclaim, does that not mean that they can't just drop this, as my claim would still need to be heard? If that's right, it might just be the right thing to do, along with obtaining a transcript and publicising the hell out of it of course  

[DragonFly1967]

Whilst I take both of your points, I can't/don't see how I could lose a counterclaim.

 

Obviously it depends on the Judge on the day (law unto themselves and all that) but given the weight of my evidence, or rather, using their own evidence against them, I think a counter claim for an unknown sum (at the Judges discretion) might be the final slap in the face that they need.

As far as I can work out, as long as I don't put any kind of monetary value on the counterclaim, all that it's going to cost me is £25 (online) to ruin their day by winning, even if it's only a token amount.

 

Ahh no, re-read it and I have to specify a monetary value.

Shame, but I reckon it'd be worth a £35 each way bet on a £500 counterclaim, just so that they have to send someone to be humiliated.

[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 

[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. 

[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.

[DragonFly1967]

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

[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.

[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

[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 

[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  

[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