Highview/DCB Legal County Court Claim Form

Ezekiel2517

Thanks so far all, defence submitted. Will update as I go along.

Coupon-mad

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. There were multiple possible drivers on an otherwise unremarkable date. The Defendant cannot guess recall who the driver was and can only recall one event when there was a delay (which may or may not have been the material date because the Claimant's evidence is sparse).  On that occasion, the Defendant was not driving and cannot be held liable by a parking firm who have never used the 'keeper liability' law and have shown themselves content, over the years, to merely pursue known drivers.  This is not such a case.

I'd suggest the above, as a starter for ten. and you have completely missed what has been discussed this past week on every other Highview defence case, with must more robust wording about a falsehood in the Particulars of Claim.

Also the point about Henry Greenslade's wording int he POFA Annual Report 2015 was used in at least one Highview defence this week and makes sense for all their cases because they can't presume that a keeper was the driver (otherwise there would have been no need for the POFA Sch4 at all).

KeithP

@Coupon-mad, although the OP still has more than two weeks before his/her Defence filing deadline, he/she has already filed it.

Coupon-mad

OK, I had missed that, thanks @KeithP!

Anyway they can now go get Henry Greenslade's words about keeper liability and bookmark it ready to use as an exhibit later, with their WS.

KeithP

Ezekiel2517 said:

Thanks so far all, defence submitted. Will update as I go along.

@Ezekiel2517, is it time for your next update yet?