Highview Parking after 4 years send a claim form

Umkomaas

The Defendant parked at the retail park on an unremarkable day almost five years ago

I've only skimmed the earlier posts, but have you already revealed the identity of the driver in previous correspondence with Highview, if not why are you now revealing who the driver was when HV have never been able to hold the RK liable? They have to prove who the driver was, as they have no legal 'call' on the RK. 

stutakesphotos

Le_Kirk said:

Best to show us the paragraphs in the same style as the template numbered 2 & 3.  Also, if the "defendant's recollection is not fresh" in the first sentence, how come it has recovered sufficiently to remember it was free?

Thank you. 

Good point on the memory side. Presumably I'd be better to remove that it's not fresh? 

Will add the numbers as recommended.

stutakesphotos

Umkomaas said:

The Defendant parked at the retail park on an unremarkable day almost five years ago

I've only skimmed the earlier posts, but have you already revealed the identity of the driver in previous correspondence with Highview, if not why are you now revealing who the driver was when HV have never been able to hold the RK liable? They have to prove who the driver was, as they have no legal 'call' on the RK. 

Thank you. I haven't told them that.

Coupon-mad

You can't say this:

The Defendant presumed the parking could continue whilst using facilities on site.

Why don't you just copy one of the many Highview defences done earlier, in the Summer.

They've already been worded well to include the POFA 2012 issue and point out that it is impossible to know who was driving, out if family members who shop locally and used the car.

You didn't need to write this from scratch at all.

stutakesphotos

Coupon-mad said:

You can't say this:

The Defendant presumed the parking could continue whilst using facilities on site.

Why don't you just copy one of the many Highview defences done earlier, in the Summer.

They've already been worded well to include the POFA 2012 issue and point out that it is impossible to know who was driving, out if family members who shop locally and used the car.

You didn't need to write this from scratch at all.

Cheers.  Will do. 

Umkomaas

stutakesphotos said:

Coupon-mad said:

You can't say this:

The Defendant presumed the parking could continue whilst using facilities on site.

Why don't you just copy one of the many Highview defences done earlier, in the Summer.

They've already been worded well to include the POFA 2012 issue and point out that it is impossible to know who was driving, out if family members who shop locally and used the car.

You didn't need to write this from scratch at all.

Cheers.  Will do. 

Decent earlier HV Defences will contain the wording you'll need to cover 'no keeper liability'. 

Redx

As mentioned above by several people , you should be reading and using defence examples from early summer , where the paragraphs 2 and 3 are already written , requiring little effort from you ( that is what we would do , not start from scratch )

stutakesphotos

Hi folks.  Hope you're having a good weekend and thank you all for your help so far.

Here are my paragraphs 2 and 3 and I'd be grateful for your comments

2.             The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited for a Total amount of £277.41 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). Through research the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle xxxx-yyy nearly 5 years ago on 14 January 2017 at Riverside Retail Park A.

3.             It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The identity of the driver at the material time is unknown to the Defendant. The Defendant was not the only person who had access to the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was or was not driving on an unremarkable Saturday nearly 5 years ago.

Redx

Why is your 2 the paragraph 1 ?

Why is your 3 paragraph 2 ?

Paragraph 2 is about keeper and/or driver liability etc , so your 3 should be 2 , there would then be no 3)

Yesterday we had a discontinuance on a Highview case , so read that one

stutakesphotos

Redx said:

Why is your 2 the paragraph 1 ?

Why is your 3 paragraph 2 ?

Paragraph 2 is about keeper and/or driver liability etc , so your 3 should be 2 , there would then be no 3)

Thank you

2.             It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The identity of the driver at the material time is unknown to the Defendant. The Defendant was not the only person who had access to the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was or was not driving on an unremarkable Saturday nearly 5 years ago.

3.             The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited for a Total amount of £277.41 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). Through research the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle xxxx-yyy nearly 5 years ago on 14 January 2017 at Riverside Retail Park A.