Claim Form

Jerm9218

Thanks for the input guys - what do we think? Is it ok? Many many thanks 

1505grandad

Para 20  -  still has the old para with "point 5" in:-

" He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed."

Le_Kirk

It looks like a mix between the old and new templates.

Jerm9218

I kept sections that I thought were relevant from the old, should I scrap these altogether in favour of the new? I was just conscious that I didn't want to miss anything relevant. Many thanks

Le_Kirk

I would use the new one and just add YOUR facts to paragraphs 2 & 3 (and more paragraphs if required) but I would not edit or remove any paragraphs from the template.

1505grandad

I previously posted:-

"Have you altered the new template Defence as we only need to see your additions to the template."

You replied that the only additions were paras 2 - 4.

Then also  -  "I kept sections that I thought were relevant from the old,...."

Personally I would follow the instructions with the latest brilliant Defence as follows:-

"Below in the 2nd post of THIS thread, is a defence draft to adapt, for all PARKING CLAIMS (except PARKING EYE - see NEWBIES thread for those claims).

The facts of your case must be added as #2 and #3 - add more if you need more, and adjust the numbers below it."

To remind regulars OP stated:-

"The facts as known to the Defendant:

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 insured driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was or was not driving on that unremarkable day, almost six 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 £333.76 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). This relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle XXXXXX nearly six years ago on 28th August 2016 at The Broad Centre, Sutton-in-Ashfield. 

4. The Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question notes that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), Schedule 4

Obviously the para 4 of the new D will have to altered to 5 and so on.

Jerm9218

Apologies I must have misread your question when I answered. 

I’ll have another look tonight and re-jig. I didn’t think I had altered the new template - but I must have done - I’ll recheck and repost a new edit later, thank you. 

Jerm9218

Ok, so new template, no old stuff and my own paras are now done. I will repost 

Jerm9218

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 insured driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was or was not driving on that unremarkable day, almost six 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 £333.76 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). This relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle XXXXXX nearly six years ago on 28th August 2016 at The Broad Centre, Sutton-in-Ashfield. 

4. The Defendant does recall receiving multiple "debt collection" letters over the years that can only be described as extremely threatening and harassing in nature from multiple different senders (there was always a different name/company). The letters all appeared to demand immediate action on the part of the Defendant and gave rise to the feeling that they must be part of some sort of scam. It felt like the Defendant was being harassed in to hastily handing over money (with ever changing amounts) in order to avoid further costs down the line, court visits and an impending CCJ that would impact on the Defendant livelihood. The Defendant ignored these threatening “Debt Collection” type letters believing that they could be part of a scam.

This is all my added bits, then follows the new template in full. 

Coupon-mad

I think #3 is not needed at all, you are just repeating there what the Judge knows already, from the claim form.

Change it to talk instead about Highview notice to keeper letters being 'non-POFA' (read any Highview thread you care to choose, and it's explained in every one that they can't hold a keeper liable).